The Coming Climate Panic

Should we arrest our best climate scientists? The denier fringe is calling for investigations and criminal charges. On today's Radio Ecoshock Show you'll hear one of the world's top scientists answer those charges. I'll digest the best from a stunning speech by Professor Richard B. Alley, at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San Francisco, in December.

Here is the link to a video of that speech.

Scroll down for much more on Richard Alley's speech, including a link to transcripts of the clips from this week's radio show, and notes to help non-scientists grasp the important new science.

But first: Ten years ago, the tipping point was whether we could stop climate change. Now, after years of inaction, the answer is no. The next tipping point is likely in human affairs, namely, will we be able to govern ourselves? Will our civilization survive the coming climate panic?

The coming climate panic. That's title of a work that just ricocheted all over the blogosphere. Let's meet the author, Auden Schendler.

[Auden Schendler interview, radio only]

I appreciate Auden Schendler's bravery putting out an SOS about delaying action on climate change. I disagree that cap and trade will actually save the planet - it's got corruption and cheating built right in, in my opinion, and in the European experience. A carbon tax that flows through to the citizens, as proposed by Dr. James Hansen and others, has a chance of actually working.

And I can't agree that the individual doesn't matter in this fight. Auden still believes governments could solve this problem. Copenhagen, and the simple record of increasing emissions no matter what government is allegedly in charge say otherwise.

Sure we should push governments, but I've consistently said that you and I, the citizens are the front line in the fight against climate change. We can and must:

- lead by example, cutting our own carbon emissions by at least 40% this year, and pointing toward energy self sufficiency. And no cheating with phony carbon off-sets.

- start connecting and organizing locally. Fossil energy supplies are limited, and we can't burn what we have. A local economy is the only way to survive well, or survive at all. Pay special attention to your food supplies.

- prepare yourself for emergencies. There are tough unstable times ahead. Have at least several weeks of food and water on hand. Plus other supplies to keep warm and safe. And prepare to help others in emergencies - the latest flood, storm, fires, heat waves. It's not enough to keep yourself or even your family alive. Get ready to help lots of folks.

- either dedicate hours a day to fight for sustainable energy in your community, or figure out where to move. Pure coal power won't last a decade. Industry won't locate there. Eventually, consumers will demand labeling not just about the contents of products - but the amount of pollution used to produce it. If you buy low-fat soup, you'll but low-energy manufactured products.

- my last point, as an individual, is DO NOT count on big governments for much at all. At every level, governments in North America, England, some European countries, and more, are really bankrupt. The growth economy is sputtering out it's last. Then we have to go for a stable state economy, or massive reductions, until the climate is stable, and until a more just distribution of wealth is achieved.

In his blog this week, the dour James Howard Kunstler writes:

"Our destination is an everyday economy where you rarely travel far from the place you live, where you have to make provision for you own health, your own old age, your own income, your own diet, your own security, and your own education. If you're really fortunate, some or all of these necessities can be obtained in conjunction with your neighbors in the place where you live -- but don't expect an increasingly mythical federal government to supply any of it. Expect a new and different way of organizing households based on extended families and kinship groups. Be prepared for agriculture to return to the foreground of everyday life, where farming is back at the center of the economy. Think about how you will cultivate your best role in a social network so the things you do will be truly valued by the other people who know you."

Find that under "The Futile Economy" January 4th, 2010 at kunstler.com

This is Radio Ecoshock. I'm Alex Smith. Look, it's winter. There is snow. It's cold. I can't believe the number of idiots who cite that as proof of the coming ice age, much less a damnation of climate change science.

Check out Joe Romm's "Experts: Cold Snap Doesn't Disprove Global Warming."

If we are really that stupid, and some of us are! - all future climate conferences should be held in August. I believe the next one comes up in May 2010 in Germany?

Climate is measured over decades at best. Heaven help us if we have two real winters in a row! The masses may give in to the loudmouth deniers, going back to energy gluttony, while supplies last. Then we're doomed.

What the heck, let's get back to skiing. Joe Romm, the climate demi-God blogger at climateprogress.org has a feature on the future of skiing this week. Published on January 6th, 2010, it's titled "Can U.S. skiing be saved?"

In the blog, a guest writes:

"Take Aspen, for instance. The resort is already seeing a gradual increase in frost-free days and warmer nights, according to Mike Kaplan, CEO of Aspen Skiing Company, and aspen trees are dying off in large numbers. A study by the Aspen Global Change Institute forecasts that if global carbon emissions continue to rise, Aspen will warm by 14 degrees by the end of this century—giving it a feel similar to Amarillo, TX."

Ouch.

I started covering this story back in 2006, with a podcast called "Can Winter Sports Be Saved?" That mp3 got thousands of downloads, and still goes out by the hundreds every month. In it, I interviewed a rep from Whistler-Blackcomb, the super Canadian ski resort where the 2010 Olympic downhill events will be held in February. Not much has changed since that time, except emissions are worse, and the climate warmed faster. Let's give it a listen now.

[audio only]

That was an interview from one of my early Radio Ecoshock podcasts in 2006, still chilling today.

Find all our past programs and features, as free mp3 downloads, at our web site, ecoshock.org.


RICHARD B ALLEY - THE CARBON CONTROL KNOB

In the recent attacks on top scientists, let us take the case of Richard B. Alley. He is the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences, at Penn State University. Alley is a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. His popular book about ice cores is called "The Two Mile Time Machine."

Alley was expected to give one of the best speeches of the 2009 annual meeting of the AGU - and he did not disappoint. I'm going to give you a short digest of that hour-long Bjerknes Lecture to the AGU in San Francisco in December, with a transcript of the quotes.

Professor Alley begins with the attack:

"I said these were interesting times. This is a copy of an email that was sent to my administration [at Penn State] by an alum [alumni, former grad of Penn State], and said alum copied me on this, so I believe I am fair. The alum asks for certain personnel changes to be made, and I have just put in the ones that relate to me.

So for what it's worth, Dr. Alley's work on CO2 levels and ice cores - now I don't actually do that but I talk about it - OK Dr. Alley's work on CO2 levels and ice cores has confirmed that CO2 lags Earth's temperature. This one scientific fact alone proves that CO2 is not the cause of the recent warming.

I continue to mislead the scientific community. There should be prompt response (getting rid of me), I have "crimes against the scientific community, Penn State, the citizens of this great country and the citizens of the world" that "must be dealt with severely" because of my "shameful" activities."

[laughter from the audience][applause]

"So there'll be a wanted poster which will be up here somewhere, but the thing which is fascinating, and we'll come back to, is that this email has in it a logical fallacy which is evident on casual observation. And I think it's worth our understanding at some level, how polarized the world is, how easy it is for someone to misunderstand our science, if they aren't fully within it, the amount of education, the amount of outreach, the amount of clarification, that we have to make, to get from this to a proper scientific understanding."

In fact, the former Penn State grad calls for "an investigation into...Dr. Alley's activities [that] will... start prior to the end of this year."

Later in this program, we'll follow Professor Alley as he explains the denialist bugaboo of carbon dioxide lagging temperature rise in climate history. In excerpts from this important speech, we'll learn more about the scientific history of our planet, and it's atmosphere.

As we will learn, this was part of a concerted effort against climate scientists at Penn State, including the famous "hockey stick" graph creator, Michael Mann, and others.

The Bjerknes Lecture is one of the keynote speeches to the American Geophysical Union annual meeting each year. Named after a famous Arctic researcher, Professor Bjerknes - Penn State's Professor Richard B. Alley received the award, and gave his speech at the December 2009 meeting in San Francisco, for his work teaching the history of Earth's past climates.

The title of the speech was "The Biggest Control Knob, Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History".

I have made a transcript of the excerpts used in today’s show – likely the only print version from the speech so far.

READ MORE

HIGHWAY TO HELL: How Smog Kills

Polluted cities kills hundreds of thousands. Under-reported plague from vehicle emissions. 2 interviews.

We are honored to have as a guest on this weeks' show: Dr. Joel Schwartz, Harvard's top expert on air pollution. I discuss Dr. Schwartz' testimony to Congress in late 2007. His presentation is still available on the Net, as a .pdf file. It is on Carbon Soot and Global Warming.

Schwartz presents one of the two most scary maps I have ever seen. (Number one was the map showing the new world regime under climate change, attached to a presentation to the Royal Society late in 2007, by Sir James Lovelock....)

The Schwartz map is simple: is just shows where particulate soot, dangerous to human health, is congregating. Gray means very unhealthy amounts of particulates, black means lethal levels.

In the United States, the whole of New England is gray, with black blotches. There is more heavy pollution over the Louisiana/Texas refinery area, and of course gray and black over Southern California.

But all of Europe is one gray area, with huge blobs of black. In our interview, I ask Dr. Schwartz whether the new diesel cars being sold in Europe have filters to preserve the air. Not nearly enough, was the reply. Apparently, about 70% of all new private cars sold in Europe are diesel, not gas. That means a lot of particulates. There are new stricter rules for emissions from these new cars, but it won't stop the rash of heart attacks, pneumonia, and prenatal damage from diesel particulates.

Worse, the Europeans have been buying diesels for a long time - and the engines can last up to 30 years. That means decades more diesel smoke from all the old engines still in use. Dr. Schwartz says anyone could tell, even blindfolded, whether they were breathing European or American air.

We cover a new study from England, by Professor George Knox, finding that pneumonia deaths, thousands of them, caused directly by transport emissions, have been missed by medical authorities. The situation now is killing more people than the famous killer smog of 1952, but the reporting system just doesn't pick it up.

The Joel Schwartz interview is a must - if you live in a city. We talk about smog canyons, how people die, and what could be done about it.

The program starts, though, almost at the other end of the world, in Alaska, with Dr. Riki Ott. Why would we call a marine expert on oil spills, to find out about city smog? Because after the Exxon Valdez spill, the American government spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research into the toxicity of oil. It was the first time such research was ever done. They found that even small amounts of oil was toxic not just to fish, but to mammals - including mammals like ourselves.

After the research, in 1999, the EPA quietly added one oil component, the PAH's, to the most deadly list of bio-accumulative toxic materials - along with things like DDT. The Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons are in your blood stream and mine. They persist, build up, and lead to cancer, birth abnormalities, and other ugly things.

Dr. Riki Ott has the expertise to explain how toxic oil is infiltrating our cities and our lives - and the bravery to speak out against a well-oiled system.

As you know, all the major TV newscasts now depend upon car advertising. So do the newspapers, which run full page ads, classified ads, and whole sections about cars they want you to want. This mainstream media is never going to tell you what this single Ecoshock program reveals.

Nanoparticles in your bloodstream - and carbon soot makes more global warming.

There are two basic kinds of air particles that impact climate. The sulphates, which come mainly from coal burning, can actually cool the planet a bit, by reflecting sunlight back into space. But these particles don't stay air-borne for more than a few weeks. It is a temporary effect.

Black soot, from coal plants and from vehicle emissions, absorbs the sun's energy, heating up the planet. It is the second largest cause of global warming. These particles also land on the snow regions, especially in the Arctic. White snow reflects a lot of solar heat back into space - but when it becomes darker, grayish, the energy is absorbed. The snow may melt earlier, or ice may not form as thickly.

I found it interesting that Dr. Schwartz, in his testimony to Congress, said that cleaning up coal emissions in North America, and car emissions, is a double win. We can save as many as 200,000 lives a year - and cut out the second largest emitter in the world. Why kid ourselves, and send money to China, or some forest project in Indonesia, when we can save lives, and reduce climate change, with action right at home. I agree.

Finally, we talk to both our guests about what we need - to breath better, live longer.

Radio Ecoshock Show 080425 1 hour CD quality 56 MB or Lo-Fi 14 MB

Production Notes: end song "Highway to Hell" by Midnight Oil; opens with Gino Vannelli clip "Wild Horses". No copyright on interviews. Major media, loaded with car ads, will never report this story. Please help get it out there.

Alex Smith
host
Radio Ecoshock

Mark Jaccard: 20 Years of Climate Failure

Why have all the political climate plans failed so badly? Targets are set, with big announcements, and yet greenhouse gas emissions just keep going up, and up.

Canada's Professor Mark Jaccard has developed scientific models, to study how governments cope with the climate challenge. His results are solid, and controversial.

Just knowing about the climate threat is obviously not enough. As consumers, we know, but just keep polluting. Some politicians mean well, but we can't seem to change our carbonized society. If knowing is half the battle, getting real protection for our atmosphere requires the other half: the dirty work we all want to avoid: taxes and compulsory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Laws with teeth.

This talk is about how nice guys finish with a wrecked climate. Maybe we have to seek other arrangements - with plans that nobody likes. Comfortable consumers don't want to change, politicians don't want to lose votes, business doesn't want to lose money. So, how can we really get emissions down?

Who is Mark Jaccard? Professor Mark Jaccard is a much sought advisor, to many levels of government. Based out of Simon Fraser University, in British Columbia, Canada - Jaccard has served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He leads the School of Resource and Environmental Management, at Simon Fraser University, in Vancouver, Canada. For several years Jaccard Chaired the B.C. Utility Commission - in charge of the energy supplies for millions. Jaccard is the author of 90 scientific papers, and three books - including "Sustainable Fossil Fuels" and his latest: "Hot Air," co-authored with famous Canadian journalist Jeffery Simpson.

As one of the few people with real solutions for governments, Jaccard is in constant demand. He has advised the Chinese government, the Canadian government, and worked with other scientists around the world. In addition to a 20 year teaching career at Simon Fraser University, Jaccard has his own consulting company, and is also funded by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Throughout all this, Mark Jaccard tries to maintain the unbiased stance of science. He is not an environmentalist, a business hack, or a politician. Jaccard has analyzed why climate policies fail, and how they could work, in any country. The facts, as he finds them, are controversial, and yet increasingly implemented by governments. That is why we need to learn from this speech delivered in Vancouver on March 4th, 2008 at the Canadian Memorial United Church.

The speech was organized by VTAAC, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change. It was recorded by Radio Ecoshock.

Studies and models by Jaccard's team, and bolstered by other social scientists all over the world, tell us that human habits are very hard to change. I guess we can include oil addiction.

It also seems there are several layers of "knowing" about something. I may "know" that smoking is bad for me, and still smoke. But at some point, I "know" I have to quit, and do. Reaching that gut level of knowledge that leads to real action is the key, when it comes to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. How can we do it?

The problem gets worse because governments are basically geared to inaction on any contentious issue. They don't want to upset voters. Jaccard says environmental groups haven't helped, by insisting that solutions to the carbon energy problem are "easy" and "cheap". The Greens say we don't need new power plants, because energy efficiency will take care of the problem. In his speech, Jaccard goes over a long history of seeking energy efficiency, and says the reality isn't so easy or cheap at all.

Just take the example of refrigerators. Fridges got more and more efficient from the 1950's to the 1970's, without any real government pressure. But that good news was blown away by people buying larger fridges, bar fridges, coolers to take to the beech, and just plain more fridges per household. Sometimes efficiency just leads to people using more of the product, not less.

The solutions of subsidizing green choices doesn't work either, says Jaccard. First of all, some people will buy energy efficient appliances, for example, without any government subsidy. The real trick is to find those people who were going to buy a gas hog, and give the subsidy to them - that leads to a real gain. But how can you find the people who need the subsidies?

And how can you develop a subsidy for all the new and crazy uses people find for energy? A government just works out rules for gas BBQ's (with an accompanying growth of bureaucracy) - and then people start bringing "outdoor heaters" to soccer games, not to mention patio heaters for bars, and a thousand other uses not envisioned by anyone. The subsidy games ends up very wasteful, not hitting the right people, and creates more and more government workers and offices to look after it.

Anyway, countries like Canada who have depended on the light touch methods - like "information," "energy efficiency," subsidies, and "change your light bulbs" - have already experienced 20 years of failure. Like almost every other country in the world, including the United States and Europe, Canada's carbon emissions have just kept skyrocketing. None of that works in the real world.

The awful truth is: when it comes to a problem this big, the individual cannot solve it. Jaccard asks: "What did you do to reduce your sulfur dioxide emissions?" back in the '80's when Acid Rain was the big problem. Obviously, governments made big industry clean it up. We didn't do much, other than complain the lakes were dying.

Same thing for climate. When the modelers add up all the benefits of changing light bulbs, going for more mass transit, and buying green - the planet still goes under with climate change. In fact, it takes massive social change, including big industry, to have a hope of preventing the worst of climate change. And that takes a kind of bravery of leadership in governments - that we haven't seen so far.

The inconvenient truth about social behavior: somebody has to make us do it. Again, Jaccard gives the example of school zones. Almost any sane person will agree that drivers shouldn't speed through school zones when there are children about. Surely, just common sense, good will, and love of kids will make these school zones safe, since we all agree it is good? No...we have patrol cars handing out tickets, stiff laws, fines - because someone needs to enforce the law.

Ditto carbon emissions.

Despite his earlier book "Sustainable Fossil Fuels" - Jaccard isn't pushing "clean coal" or anything like that. In this speech, he claims to be agnostic when it comes to using a carbon tax, a cap and trade system, or a hybrid that uses market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gases. Any of those can be designed to work, he says, so long as the government is willing to enforce laws that work in reality.

Personally, as soon as I hear the words "climate policy" my eyes glaze over. I've heard so much bull-shit, and seen so many fabulous announcements and "super-green" plans go down uselessly. So, I had low expectations for this speech. Surprise. Professor Jaccard has been lecturing for 20 years, with students who challenge him - so he does know how to communicate. It's a good speech - which taught me some of the realities we need to know, if we demand that governments act on climate. Act how? What really works?

I'm hoping people in many countries will check out this speech, especially in America, where a lot of tough decisions need to be made, to reduce the load from one of the world's biggest polluters. The climate threat is so huge, we all need to understand "climate policy" - and what to demand.

Alex.

www.ecoshock.org