Latest Newscourtesy Worldwatch InstituteWorld Watch Magazine: Jim Hansen on Climate Change
Editor's Note: If any single event can be said to have put climate change on the world's policy radar, it was the testimony of NASA scientist James Hansen before Senator Tim Wirth's committee in Congress on June 23, 1988. On the eve of the twentieth anniversary of that event, World Watch's Ben Block talked with Hansen about its impact. Hansen will be honored at a Worldwatch Institute sponsored symposium in Washington, D.C., on June 23, 2008. For more information, go to www.worldwatch.org/events/hansenhearing.
World Watch: What led you to your 1988 testimony?
James Hansen: This was the culmination of years of work, going back at least to three papers between 1981 and 1982, [discussing] carbon dioxide and climate change in the journal Science, other trace gases in Geophysical Research Letters, and sea level, also published in Science. What was different in 1988 was that I had a more comprehensive paper completed and in press at Journal of Geographical Research, which was the attachment to my 1988 testimony.
WW: What did you expect the impact of your testimony would be?
JH: Well, the intention was to get some public exposure. Rafe Pomerance [founder of the Climate Policy Center, who was then aWorld Resources Institute senior fellow] visited me after reading our 1981 Science paper [on carbon dioxide] and encouraged me to testify to Congress, which I did a few times in the 1980s without much effect. The hope was to get more attention this time, which seemed possible given the extreme U.S. climate [hot weather] in 1988.
WW: Looking back, how did it go?
JH: It certainly got the desired attention. My regret, shortly thereafter, was that I had not discussed the impact of global warming on the hydrologic cycle in a more general way. Global warming means more moisture in the atmosphere, so heavy rain events and floods will increase. But, at times and places when it is dry, drought intensity will increase. Because of the emphasis on drought in 1988, I decided to testify again in 1989. That testimony got a lot of attention also, because I complained about [the White House's Office of Management and Budget] changing my testimony, but that hullabaloo caused the message about the hydrologic cycle to be lost.
WW: When many scientists responded to the '88 testimony that you were "ahead of the science," how did you react?
JH: I was not too concerned about that, I knew that within not many years it would become obvious whether or not I was right. Since I was very confident that I was, I thought there was some value of, in effect,making a prediction.
WW: Since you told the press that your climate-change observations were being censored by the Bush administration around 2005, how did it change your role in shaping the public discourse on climate change?
JH: It probably has given more attention to the matter. The New York Times press coverage did not do a good job of tracking the censorship to its source, instead attributing it to a 24-yearold renegade. Mark Bowen's book, Censoring Science, tracks the problem to the top.
WW: Over the past 20 years, what developments in science, policy, or public perceptions-or lack thereof-have surprised you the most?
JH: I have to admit that I am surprised and disappointed at the lack of substantial action to mitigate climate change. I am impressed by many of the people, senators et cetera, that I met in Washington, yet Washington seems to be under the heavy thumb of special interests, especially fossil fuel special interests. Clearly they have not succeeded in doing what is best for the people; rather they are doing what is best for big business.
WW: How often do you think the government is attempting to distort results of scientific research?
JH: Almost all scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency say that they cannot say what they believe if it goes against the [Bush] administration's preference. In NASA it was the same (if policy-relevance was involved) until the administrator gave a green light. My impression is that things have improved, but they are still not good. My information is based on hearsay from a small number of scientists, but also on broader studies such as the last one conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This attitude of the administration is idiotic, not just because it violates basic principles of democracy, but because it leads to lousy policymaking. Why do you need advice of scientists, if you know that you are only going to accept results that fit predetermined policy decisions?
WW: Numerous governments and NGOs around the world are calling to limit the atmosphere's temperature increase to 2 degrees C. Do you believe this to be a safe limit, and do you think this target is achievable?
JH: That target is easily achievable with sensible policies. Unfortunately, warming that large is a guarantee of global disasters. We are already within a fraction of one degree of the warmest interglacial periods. Two degrees C would put us into the range of the Middle Pliocene [the last period of geological time, 3.5 to 2.5 million years ago, of greater global warmth]. Unfortunately, based on polar temperature maxima, we overestimated the warmth of prior interglacial periods.
WW: Some scientists have argued that we have already reached tipping points in some regions of the world. Do you agree? If so, what are they and can we avoid them?
JH: We need to distinguish tipping level and the point of no return, as explained in our new "Target CO2" paper. The tipping level is the level of greenhouse gases that will lead to large, undesirable, even disastrous, effects. We have reached the tipping level for several important effects. That is why we must go back in CO2 amounts at least to 350 ppm and possibly lower. The point of no return is when the dynamics of the process take over and it is out of our control, we cannot stop it, e.g., the ice sheet from disintegrating, because of positive feedback and warming in the pipeline. Some phenomena have enough inertia that we can afford some overshoot of the safe CO2 level, provided that we get back to a lower amount fast enough. The ice sheets and sea level may be in that category. Unfortunately, Arctic sea ice has reached the point where we are going to lose all of the warm season ice within the next few decades.
WW: Often the more you know about the hard realities of climate change, the more depressing it becomes.What inspires you to be hopeful?
JH: It becomes readily solvable if we do just a few things that make enormous sense for other reasons. By far the most important is a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants (unless they capture CO2) and a phase-out over the next two decades of existing ones.We will also need a high enough price on carbon emissions to avert substantial use of unconventional fossil fuels (tar shale, tar sands). Moving beyond fossil fuels sooner (we would have to do it within several decades anyhow) makes enormous sense for many reasons (cleaner air and water, energy independence, et cetera) for everybody except a handful of fossil fuel executives, but, unfortunately, they wield enormous power in our governments, and not just in the United States. I still believe that our democracy can work, but it requires overcoming the undue influence of money in politics.
WW: You have repeatedly called for a moratorium on coal power plants and have even written to leaders of U.S. states and countries that are considering new coal plants.What reactions have you received to these letters?
JH: Perhaps it helped in the United Kingdom, but it remains to be seen. At least the opposition leader has come out with a position in favor of a moratorium. But [a conventional coal-fired power plant in] Kingsnorth [Kent, UK] is still up in the air. Germany [is] unclear. I have been invited to come over and talk with the minister of the environment. The governor of Nevada is in the hip pocket of the coal industry. I am afraid that the same is true in Minnesota (despite the greenwashing of him) and Virginia. Perhaps utility CEOs are more important. [International investor] Jim Rogers has been greenwashing, but maybe he is open minded. I am having dinner with him soon. I had a very good meeting with the CEO of [energy service company] Public Service Enterprise Group.
WW: After a long career of achievements, what would you like to accomplish before you leave NASA?
JH: There are several papers that I am working on that I believe to be significant. And, somehow, I need to be able to write more clearly, so that the implications are understood and believed.
Purchase a PDF of the entire July/August issue of World Watch, or subscribe or renew to World Watch Magazine. Current subscribers, log in and download this issue, and past issues of World Watch.
Environmental Skeptics Are Overwhelmingly Politicized, Study SaysA review of environmental skepticism literature from the past 30 years has found that the vast majority of skeptics, often identified as independent, are directly linked to politically oriented, conservative think tanks.
The study, published in this month's issue of Environmental Politics, analyzed books written between 1972 and 2005 that deny the authenticity of environmental problems. The researchers found that more than 92 percent of the skeptical authors were in some way affiliated to conservative think tanks - non-profit research and advocacy organizations that promote core conservative ideals.
While many environmental skeptics are known to work for these think tanks, the study is the first to provide a quantitative analysis of the relationship. The popular media often regard environmental skeptics as independent experts, despite their connection to industry-funded campaigns that seek to de-legitimize sound environmental science reports, especially on climate change, says lead author Peter Jacques, an environmental politics professor at the University of Central Florida.
"A lot of skeptics might say they are independent voices, but it's clear there is an organization behind the skeptical discourse," Jacques said. "If not for conservative think tanks, we wouldn't be having this same discussion; we wouldn't be hung up on whether climate change is real."
The review analyzed 141 books, which the authors consider the largest compilation of the environmental skepticism genre and the majority of all English-language skepticism books. An author was "affiliated" to a think tank if the organization published the book or if the author ever - before or after the book was published - held a position with the organization, wrote for an organization's publications, or delivered lectures sponsored by the organization.
The U.S. conservative movement has lead opposition to international environmental regulation since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the years since, the movement has succeeded in undermining the credibility of many environmental issues, said Riley Dunlap, a sociology professor at Oklahoma State University, who co-authored the study. "From the [political] right, there's no longer a sense of neutral, objective science - only liberal or conservative - and that's an unfortunate trend," Dunlap said.
Many skeptics say that they form their opinion despite their affiliation to think tanks or industry. For instance, Ronald Bailey, a correspondent for the ExxonMobil-funded Reason Foundation and former fellow for the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, recently reversed his stance as a climate change denier. His original skepticism was the result of inconsistent temperature datasets. He was not "passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches," he wrote in the article Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore.
The authors say skeptics like Bailey have every right to voice their opinion. But the statements of a few think tank-supported experts should not be regarded as equal to scientific findings that have been vetted through an intense peer-review process, they say. "We want to allow a cacophony of voices in public policy," Jacques said. "Where we get into problems is where we fail to evaluate the voices; we fail to evaluate the merit of the claim."
Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
All-Consuming Question: Is Population or Human Behavior the Problem?
This entry was originally posted to the Island Press blog, Island Interactive, at www.islandpress.org/blog. Robert will post periodic updates on population as he promotes his new book, More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want.
Talking to reporters and others about my new book, More: Population, Nature, and What Women, I'm sometimes asked where consumption fits into the population picture. A review in the intriguingly named magazine Bitch, for example,criticized the book for "failing to adequately distinguish between the individuals who are overpopulating the world and the individuals who are responsible for the type of overconsumption that causes environmental deterioration."
Well, the book actually doesn't identify any individuals who are "overpopulating the world." I explain on the book's second page why I don't like the word overpopulation. And for many years I chaired the board of the Center for a New American Dream, which works to make North American consumption a sustainable model for the world. I see More as being in one sense all about consumption, because it is through what we use, consume, and discard that human beings affect the environment.
Unfortunately for open discussions, consumption is often placed in opposition to population, as the Bitch review does - as if one part of the world has no population and only consumes, while another has no consumption and only populates. That's not how the world works. Population and consumption multiply each other everywhere, in rich countries and poor, even though the dynamics and magnitude of each force vary widely across and within countries.
One obvious connection between the two is that if populations had never grown large, the consumption levels of individuals wouldn't have much impact on the environment. We worry about consumption precisely because there are so many of us affecting nature and natural resources.
A second point, which I explore in More (p. 230), is that population growth itself has historically driven people to innovate in ways that often boost individual consumption. The exhaustion of forests as European populations kept growing drove people in the 16th century to use coal, long considered a dirty fuel inferior to wood. Improvements in coal mining made possible the Industrial Revolution, which in turn facilitated the hazardous alteration of the Earth's atmosphere today. In modern industrialized nations, sprawl and the great distances many people drive have a lot to do with high population densities.
As More makes clear, we're not going to solve human-induced climate change or most other serious environmental problems through any one policy change, technological breakthrough, or change in individual behavior. It's going to take action on every level, and even then we'll be adapting to a rapidly changing environment for generations to come. A world of 6.7 billion people can't easily change its behavior to leave no imprint on the Earth.
What's attractive about addressing population is that it will stop growing, for the best of reasons, if we can satisfy the wants of women everywhere for reproductive choice. A stable or gradually declining world population offers the best demographic platform for a sustainable future, one in which consumption is environmentally safe and meets the needs and reasonable wants of people everywhere.
European Union Poised to Increase RecyclingThe European Union is currently debating waste management targets that could significantly increase recycling rates throughout Europe.
Legislators on the European Parliament's Environment Committee overwhelmingly supported reforms earlier this year that would halt the steady rise in the region's garbage. By 2012, waste production would have to stabilize at 2009 levels, the committee recommended.
To reduce the amount of trash deposited into landfills, EU member states would have to increase recycling rates across all sectors. The policy proposal is a reaction to the growing burden of municipal waste across Europe, although countries that are new to the union may struggle to meet the challenge.
The Environment Committee called for recycling rates to more than double by 2020. Households would have to reuse or recycle at least 50 percent of their waste. Construction, demolition, manufacturing, and industry would be required to meet a 70 percent target. Parliament will vote on the recycling targets on June 16.
The ambitious recycling rates were quickly rejected by the Council of the European Union, however, which called the targets unattainable due to "recycling imbalances" among member states. Instead, the council recommends recycling targets that are about 5 percent more lenient for each sector.
If an agreement is reached, it appears likely that overall recycling rates will have to increase. According to the Parliament's Environment Committee, 49 percent of EU municipal waste goes to landfills, 18 percent is incinerated, and 27 percent is recycled or composted. The amount of municipal waste is expected to grow 25 percent between 2005 and 2020.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
