Orange County Global Warming Committee

Policy

Plea from Maldives President – 13 Nov 2009
Reducing Greenhouse Gases May not be Enough to Slow Climate Change – 11 Nov 2009
Climate Roulette – 9 Oct 2009
There's Still Time to Cut the Risk of Climate Catastrophe – 5 Oct 2009
On Energy, We’re Finally Walking the Walk – 22 Sep 2009

From 350.org 13 November 2009

Plea from Maldives President

Earlier this week, President Nasheed--the leader of a low-lying nation faced with the very real threat of imminent extinction due to rising seas--delivered a powerful speech at the opening of the "Climate Vulnerable Forum.” The "Climate Vulnerable Forum" included many of the nations on the very front lines of the climate crisis, nations that are grappling with the impacts of the climate crisis here and now. The focus of President Nasheed's speech was to bring attention to the dire consequences of ending the Copenhagen Climate Talks this December with a weak or non-binding agreement.
Here are President Nasheed's words:
We are gathered here because we are the most vulnerable group of nations to climate change. Some might prefer us to suffer in silence but today we have decided to speak...we will not die quietly. Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius. Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal.At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs. At two degrees we would melt Greenland. At two degrees my country would not survive.As a president I cannot accept this.  As a person I cannot accept this. I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do any about it. Copenhagen is our date with destiny.  Let us go there with a better plan.
Nasheed called on all nations to push for carbon neutrality in order to ensure the survival of his country and all the most vulnerable people around the world:
After all, it is not carbon we want, but development.  It is not coal we want, but electricity. It is not oil we want, but transport. Low-carbon technologies now exist, to deliver all the goods and services we need. Let us make the goal of using them.
Finally, he made the distinction between what might be considered a good deal in Copenhagen, and one that would ensure the end of his people:
At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible.  They never make commitments, unless someone else does first. This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide. We don't want a global suicide pact.  And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere. So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.
These are bold words, bolder than most people understand.
Here's the backstory: President Nasheed and other leaders of some of the world's most vulnerable countries  are already being pressured to back down from their commitments to strong action. For example, when African countries stood up at the UN Climate Talks in Barcelona last week and demanded rich countries commit to strong climate targets, European capitol's placed immense pressure on them to back off, so much so that the chair of the African negotiating bloc was forced to leave the negotiations.
To sign the survival pact with 350.org for President Nasheed, copy the following link http://action.350.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1711

Article from ScienceDaily 11 November 2009

Reducing Greenhouse Gases May not be Enough to Slow Climate Change

Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone is publishing a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
Brian Stone, Professor of Regional Planning at Georgia Tech City College, believes that policymakers at Copenhagen should seriously think about climate change management strategies that go beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone. He reports that approximately half of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is due to changes in land use (eg. clearing forests for agriculture or development). Because of these land use change, large cities are warming much more rapidly than the planet as a whole. Thus, cap-and-trade programs may not be enough to slow climate change in areas where most people live. Stone recommends slowing the rate of deforestation and regenerating forests that have been lost.
Stone terms climate change due to land use changes as the "green loss effect.” He proposes planting millions of trees in urbanized areas and protecting and restoring forests outside of urban areas. He notes that forested areas have the combined beneficial effect of directly cooling of the surrounding atmosphere as well as absorbing greenhouse gases. City planners should also encourage the installation of green roofs and construction materials that are more highly reflective.
Local and state governments can take the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government implements carbon reduction initiatives, such as cap and trade programs. Currently, the capacity of local governments to participate in managing climate change has not been considered by the US Congress.
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111083055.htm

Article from The Nation 7 October 2009 by Mark Hertsgaard
Climate Roulette
According to a recent study by a German advisory council on global warming, WBGU, in order to avoid a global warming catastrophe, the US must cut carbon emissions by 100% within 10 years, other developed nations must do the same by 2030, and China by 2035. That is the conclusion of a risk study led by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climate scientist and chair of WBGU. This study went well beyond the watered down conclusions of the IPCC, which required consensus among many reviewers.
This timetable is much tighter than the one being considered by countries that are participating in the Copenhagen talks in December. Most countries are considering no more than 20-30% reductions by 2020. At the G-8 summit recently, the US and other leaders agreed to a goal of limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. According to Schellnhuber, even with his tighter timeline the odds are 2 out of 3 that the target would be met; odds that are worse than Russian roulette. A 3 of 4 chance of achieving the 2-degree target would require quitting carbon even sooner.
The WBGU study was based on a fundamental political assumption that every person has the same right to emit greenhouse gases, known as the “per-capita principle.” Applying that assumption to a total population of 7 billion people, every person worldwide currently emits 2.7 tons of carbon dioxide each year. Because the US actually emits 20 tons per person per year, it must cut back more drastically sooner. Schellnhuber recommends that governments agree at Copenhagen to a “Green Apollo Project" for developed countries that would gradually decrease their carbon emissions to zero within a decade. This plan could include carbon trading with low-emissions countries. According to Schellnhuber, only a "wartime mobilization" will protect us from catastrophic climate change.
Link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091026/hertsgaard

Article from Science Daily 5 October 2009

There's Still Time to Cut the Risk of Climate Catastrophe

A new analysis of climate risk, published by researchers at MIT and elsewhere, shows that even moderate carbon-reduction policies now can substantially lower the risk of future climate change. It also shows that quick, global emissions reductions would be required in order to provide a good chance of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level — a widely discussed target. But without prompt action, they found, extreme changes could soon become much more difficult, if not impossible, to control.
Ron Prinn, who is co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, presented the results of a risk study that suggests we still have approximately a 50% chance of preventing global temperature increases greater than the 2-degree target considered likely to prevent run-away climate change. To do so, however, we will have to decrease carbon emissions immediately. That means that the US and other developed countries will have to aim for aggressive emissions targets.
The study looked at probabilities of various outcomes, rather than the likely outcome in a particular climate model. Prinn pointed out that the usual climate change discussion is a debate between the extremes of "the world is ending tomorrow, versus it's all a myth,” neither of which is useful. It is more important to look at the risks of extreme climate change and costs of preventing them.
A prior study by this group found a high risk for extreme temperature increases that would be devastating. The current study evaluated the reduction in that risk that could be achieved by 4 different policies designed to reduce carbon emissions.
The climate model used was the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, which simulates economic activity as well as climate processes. The model was run hundreds of times, each with a slight variation in input parameters, which were based on current conditions and knowledge. This approach is the only one that details the country-to-country possible changes in human behavior associated with energy use. The study also examined a wide range of possible temperature outcomes instead of just a few that represented a “best guess.”
An important finding was that even modest emissions-control policies can provide a major reduction in the odds of the most devastating outcomes. The problem is one of risk management, just like many decisions people have to make every day. Using seat belts, for example, doesn’t prevent you from being killed or severely injured in automobile accident, but it reduces the risk. Trade-offs like that are made every day.
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091002120414.htm#

Summarized from an article from Earth Policy Institute 21 September 2009 by Lester Brown

On Energy, We’re Finally Walking the Walk

According to Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute and author of the book “Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization,” the US is ending a long period of rising carbon dioxide emissions and has entered in a new energy era. It has seen a dramatic 9% decrease in carbon emissions over 2008 and 2009. As a result, the country will be in a strong position to participate in the December world climate negotiations in Copenhagen.
Carbon-cutting initiatives that have led to this result included improved standards for automobile fuel-economy and appliance efficiency, and the increasing use of carbon-free sources of electricity to provide buildings with heat, cooling, and light. In addition new alternatives in energy sources (wind, solar, and geothermal) are actively being developed. Although the recession and higher prices of gasoline have been partly responsible for the decreased in carbon emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and shifts to alternative sources have also contributed.
The decrease in oil use in the US since 2007 is startling. Over the last year, there were decreases of 5% in the use of oil, 1% in the use of coal, and 4% in the overall carbon emissions. The Energy Department has projected that oil use this year will be down by an additional 5%, coal by 10%, and overall carbon emissions by 9%.
While Congress is proposing to cut carbon emissions by 15-20% by 2020, most environmentalists think we should be pushing for an 80% reduction. The current efforts are having an effect everywhere, from federal, state, and city levels of government, in corporations and universities, and individual Americans.
Happily, utilities are moving away from promoting “clean coal,” despite their $45 million budget to do so. On July 9, Sierra Club announced the 100th cancellation of a proposed coal plant since 2001. The Tennessee Valley Authority is considering closing its coal Plant near Rogersville, Tennessee., along with the oldest 6 of the 8 plants near Stevenson, Alabama. Some 22 plants in 12 states are converting to wood-fired power, wind farms, or natural gas energy sources. The Rocky Mountain Institute has determined that we could reduce electricity use by one-third if every state was to achieve the same degree of electrical efficiency of the 10 most-efficient states. If this happened, 62% of the 617 coal plants in the country could be closed.
Utilities are experiencing a fall in demand, partly because of the economic downturn but also because of efficiency improvements. States responses vary widely. Some are adopting energy-efficient alternatives while others are stuck using old ones. According to a report by the Rocky Mountain Institute, if more states adopted the electrical efficiency technologies of the 10 most efficient states, we could reduce national electricity use by over 30% and close over 600 coal-based power plants.
Wind farms have been multiplying. Last year, 102 wind farms started up, providing the equivalent of 8 coal-fired power plants, and additional wind projects are in various stages of development to provide the equivalent of 300 coal plants.
Solar energy installations are increasing by 40%/year. Thanks to new government incentives, there should be continuing growth in installation of rooftop systems on homes and businesses. Solar thermal power plants are being installed rapidly in California, Arizona, and Nevada, and will contribute some 6,000 megawatts of power. As heat-storage technology improves, these plants should continue to generate power long after sundown.
Oil use is also declining, having decreased precipitously recently partly because of the concern about oil supplies and future gasoline prices. We should see further decreases in oil use as federal fuel economy standards are implemented and the shift to more fuel-efficient cars continues, especially with plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars.
The ongoing discussion about the political feasibility of cutting carbon emissions at the federal level has to stop. The scientific evidence tells us that we must act now. The threat of melting ice alone indicates that we are in trouble. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level is expected to rise over 20 feet. We are likely to experience a 6-foot rise this century. This would inundate many low-lying coastal cities, several of which are major agricultural areas.
Land-based glacier melting will deprive major cities of river flow during the dry season, which will have a major effect on agriculture in areas that depend on irrigation.
To save the larger ice masses in Antarctica it would probably be necessary to decrease carbon emissions 80% by 2020. This might limit atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to 400 ppm in 2020. They are currently 387 ppm. If we can accomplish that goal, it might be possible to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations to 350 ppm, which climatologist James Hansen says is necessary to ward off the most devastating effects of global warming.
If the US can adopt measure to cut carbon emissions by 80% in 2020, will the rest of the world follow? China and India, the 2 countries that are developing the most coal-fired power plants, are also going to be more impacted by global warming because of their agricultural needs. Fortunately, China is making a major effort to switch to alternative forms of energy. Their wind-generating potential is estimated to be 7‑times its current electrical energy needs, and their rapidly expanding development of wind farms is expected to quickly exceed that of the US.
Currently, China has the majority of the world’s rooftop water heaters, and it is the leading producer of solar cells. Within the past month, China announced that it would build a solar cell complex that could supply 2,000 megawatts of electricity. For India, the solar potential of the Great Indian Desert could provide enough power for the entire Indian economy.
Reversing global warming is a complex task involving substantial risks; but if the US leads the world is likely to follow.
Link: http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2009/update82