If you are scared of a zero carbon economy, you are confusing "carbon free" with "climate change."

Bill McKibben:   "[I]f our goal is to keep the Earth’s temperature from rising more than two degrees Celsius—the upper limit identified by the nations of the world—how much more new digging and drilling can we do?

Here’s the answer: zero.

That’s right: If we’re serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can’t dig any new coal mines, drill any new fields, build any more pipelines. Not a single one. We’re done expanding the fossil fuel frontier. Our only hope is a swift, managed decline in the production of all carbon-based energy from the fields we’ve already put in production.

... 

'Managed decline' means we don’t have to grind everything to a halt tomorrow; we can keep extracting fuel from existing oil wells and gas fields and coal mines. But we can’t go explore for new ones. We can’t even develop the ones we already know about, the ones right next to our current projects." 

Action on climate does not mean living in caves.

Action on climate does not mean hunting around in the dark.

Action on climate does not mean living without power.

That's what happens if we DON'T act on climate.

Clinton's Transition Team, Jennifer Granholm and Listening to the Experts

Clinton and Granholm

I was contacted by text with "Bad news...  Clinton appointed Ken Salazar as the head of her transition team.  BETRAYAL." (paraphrased down to the point).

Now there is one thing I have learned watching these races.  Stop and read.

Ken Salazar?  Well, time to go back and re-read the details.  UGH.  Quoted as saying that fracking has no harmful impact on the environment as recently as 2014.  That is ridiculous.  Pants on fire kinda statement.  But, on the other hand, made decisions to regulate fossil fuel extraction in national parks.  Advocate for public lands.  Okay.  Mixed bag.

The second thing I have learned is to stop and think.  What does the Salazar appointment mean?  Well, it isn't a surprise.  Clinton has been clear, she sees gas as a bridge fuel.  Not how I see it. I see it as something that's got to end ASAP. But, whether you view it like I do, or you view it like she does, we have to deal with the reality that we must build the grid, storage and carbon free energy before we can end gas, oil and coal. And to do that, we must see market changes that drive that change.  Imagine for the moment that we banned gas today. Today. No more gas. What would happen? Coal would make a comeback. Coal is dead because of gas. (In part, as orchestrated by Beyond Coal, a joint venture of Sierra Club and Michael Bloomberg). And it is easy to convert a gas power station back to a coal power station.

Is she planning on supporting the construction of that grid, storage and carbon free energy? Yes. Her end horizon for gas is different than mine. But either way, the initial steps are the same.  Her plans are not enough. But, then, neither was Sanders’, and the climate movement didn't even look at O'Malley. Her plans DO include many of the first steps an executive can make in the face of an obstructionist Congress, however.

But here is the other thing to consider.  One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she pulls together lots of different people.  Gets all the vested interests to the table to talk and figure out how to move forward.  Bill McKibben's recent piece makes it clear that current industry must be brought to the table. (By force or by invitation, whichever works.  He relates how it was current industry that was coerced to mobilize to fight WWII, and then permitted to take credit for their work.)

So, I asked myself, who else is at this table?  This Vox piece tells us the big names.  And this piece from Politico talks about the huge list of climate and energy policy experts advising Clinton.  Wow.  A lot of people involved here besides Salazar.  Context is everything.

Here is one of the five top people on the transition team:  Jennifer Granholm.  Former governor of Michigan.  A quick google gave me this excellent 2013 Ted Talk, in which Granholm explains why she advocates challenge grants to the states to bypass congressional gridlock and motivate all states to work for clean energy solutions.

Where have I seen challenge grants to get states to act on climate before?  Oh, right...Hillary Clinton's Clean Energy Challenge:

"Hillary Clinton will launch a Clean Energy Challenge that forms a new partnership with states, cities, and rural communities that are ready to lead on clean energy. She will outline this Challenge in detail in the coming weeks, and it will include:

1. Climate Action Competition: Competitive grants and other market-based incentives to empower states to exceed federal carbon pollution standards and accelerate clean energy deployment.
2. Solar X-Prize: Awards for communities that successfully cut the red tape that slows rooftop solar installation times and increases costs for businesses and consumers."

 Fortunately, the Clean Energy Challenge is but one of a host of climate solutions plans that Hillary Clinton is advocating.  It might be reasonable to infer that they all find their genesis in people like Granholm.  Hillary Clinton LISTENS to the experts.  All of them.  Yes, Ken Salazar is there.  And so is Jennifer Granholm, along with a virtual army of other folks.  All at the table.  And in her Climate Map/War Room. (“'Hillary’s been talking about creating a climate war room in the White House,' Podesta said, then correcting himself that he meant to say climate map room. 'To be able to see where effects are taking place, to keep it real time, to use the technologies that are available, to try to imagine what is happening in the natural world and what the impact of that is going to be on the economy and the society.'”)

Our job?  We need to be sure we are at the table too, by voting on the basis of climate solutions, by speaking out on climate solutions and by supporting those with climate solutions.  Because it is clear, Clinton is listening.

Scientific Consensus, the IPCC and Just How Bad It Really Is

Here is a great graphic showing possible pathways we can take. It shows how soon we start emissions cuts will determine the rate at which we must get to zero emissions and how much ultimate warming we will see.

This graphic demonstrates the projections made within consensus science, including the IPCC projections.  These IPCC projections are terrifying, but show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Cutting edge, newer projections, are generally more dire than this.  Here are some examples of news stories that paint an even more dire picture: http://theconversation.com/we-have-almost-certainly-blown-the-1-5-degree-global-warming-target-63720 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize?CMP=share_btn_fb

IPCC projections are unusual in science, as a self-conscious attempt to sum up the consensus. Normally, in science, consensus simply emerges from the literature over long periods of time.  Given we don't have long periods of time, the IPCC attempts to move that forward more quickly. 

Faced with these contradictions, the media and the polity generally assume the more recent studies are the better or more accepted science.  However, in science, it usually works in reverse.  The newest studies have yet to be vetted and require more time for attempts to confirm or rebut their conclusions.  In the case of climate change, we don't have that kind of time.  Moreover, new data is available on a daily basis, adding weight to the newer studies.  On top of that, the IPCC often is suspected of slanting toward the more conservative, more palatable, less scary conclusions as a matter of policy.

So, what is a climate concerned citizen to do?

It is still very important to stay grounded in scientific process. Newer, cutting edge projections do not have the benefit of as much vetting by the scientific community. One of the reasons science is so trustworthy is that vetting process. So while we should keep an eye on the newer projections, we cannot dismiss what scientists have supported en masse already.

This is my take.  The scientists MUST continue to pursue the scientific process.  That means, leaning heavily on the consensus and looking to the cutting edge with skepticism.  But looking to challenge and confirm or rebut it.

The activists, the politicians, the polity, on the other hand, has this:  the reality is that whatever the scientists express differences on, they ALL agree on that we must cut carbon today by ending infrastructure that supports a carbon economy and we must do it as quickly as we can muster.

So a climate concerned citizen must must must continue to work on the certainty that we must cut carbon and leave the uncertainties to the scientists.

This is challenging because politicians want to know how much time we have.  This is challenging because the uncertainties leave those without science literacy think scientists don't know what they are doing and climate activists are not reading the right studies.  This is challenging because none of us want to face the reality that things are really really dire.  This is challenging because good messaging may seem out of touch with the reality, particularly when the reality is uncertain.  This is challenging because the initial steps we can take are dwarfed by the enormity of what we must accomplish.

This is challenging.

But, then, no one said this was easy.

I, for one, will write another letter to the editor, hang dry another load of laundry, replace another incandescent bulb, plan my next year's teaching and plan for my EV purchase this Winter.

The Regulatory Hydra

Regulation of oil, gas and coal is like trying to cut the head off a hydra.   You do it, because the head is dangerous, but two more heads pop up in its place. The ongoing saga of fighting for reasonable regulation of gas is exemplified by the news out today that scientists are challenging EPA conclusions on fracked water.

At some point, the focus must be on the demand for these fuels. A growing number of experts identify a carbon tax is THE gold standard means for addressing that.  Other carbon pricing mechanisms can work too. We don't have one of those. Congress isn't really keen on passing one.  Yet.  (Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups have seen great progress on the Hill and Sanders' campaign just raised awareness and political will for a carbon tax immeasurably).

Carbon pricing is not the only way to send market signals, however. We have seen the impending demise of coal simply because we allowed gas to be utterly cheap. That happened by allowing frackers to pollute and create wanton destruction.

Lack of regulation keeps market prices low. Imposing regulation drives up market cost. The more we regulate gas, the higher its cost will be.

Yes. Back to the dreaded hydra. Because, at the end of the day, it comes to us to demand that private actors don't hurt each other. We have a police force because we recognize that. Private actors don't just use theft, trespass, rape and murder to hurt each other. They use things like fracking too, so long as it's profitable.

However, we'd better be careful. As we regulate gas, if we don't want to return to coal, we'd best be sure there is a cheaper alternative to them both.

Renewables are looking to be that. Some reports show that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest means of energy production.  However, without transmission or storage, renewables will remain dependent on gas.

So, we must make transmission and storage and solar and wind work together more cheaply than gas. Quickly.

How?  Subsidize the corporations making renewables or give tax breaks to the people buying them.

Congress, last December extended the tax credits for solar and wind purchases. There are growing numbers of state programs supporting renewables as well. This is important to getting us to the 2020 mark when renewables will be cheaper even without these subsidies.

But transmission?  We need a national grid. (Hillary's got a plan for that, as part of her infrastructure plan.  And she is continuing to make it a key part of her campaign even when she is talking about the broad scope of her campaign.)

The market signals also impact another source of energy:  nuclear. At the moment, nuclear, like renewables with transmission and storage, can't compete with poorly regulated gas unless subsidized. This is not just true of newly built plants. This is true of maintaining current plants. Yes. Running already existing nuclear plants is more expensive than fracked gas. That's why they are closing.

If we want carbon free energy, we will subsidize it while also regulating carbon filled energy. It's really that simple.

Well, it could be simpler. We could ditch all that and enact a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.

Thanks to CCL Canada for the Image

Turn Your Face to the Sun and the Shadows Fall Behind You

The climate damage we have locked in is enormous, even by conservative projections.  If we stopped burning all fossil fuels today, if we emitted not one more greenhouse gas molecule, we would continue to warm, with temperatures still climbing 40 years from now.  What's more, it turns out that the warming we are doing is causing changes that will themselves cause further warming.  (Called positive feedbacks).  Some of these could be irreversible (referred to as runaway warming).

This knowledge is a huge blow to anyone first looking at climate change.

Anyone first starting out, thinks, okay, I see this is a problem.  I am ready to address it.  And then they start to dig and they find out that it isn't that simple. Huge changes are already bought and paid for. Nonrefundable.  [Examples of facts people don't often realize when they start out: (1) the Arctic Sea Ice currently reflects light energy but as melted water will absorb light energy and convert it to heat, (2) the potent greenhouse gas, methane, may increasingly be released as ice melts, (3) fires are increasing and therefore releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, (4) the West Antarctic Ice Shelf  (WAIS) is now irreversibly on a path to collapse, (5) the damage we feel today is from gases put into the atmosphere 40 years ago.  Before learning of these, people think, well, this is a giant problem, but it is purely technological and we can fix it.  These facts are the heartrending truth.]

It is too late to avoid climate change.  We have already warmed about 1C and we are seeing droughts, floods, extreme heat, rampant fires, sea level rise, coral reef devastation, rises in vector borne diseases, super storms and general chaos.  Even more shocking, we cannot avoid 1.5C.  That's right.  All the hellishness we see now, and it doesn't even account for the greater warming we have already bought and paid for.  Add to that that we have the infrastructure to keep burning more, and we don't have the infrastructure to stop burning more.  Not only that, we continue to build the infrastructure to have even greater capacity to burn more into the future.

So the thing they first sought out to save is no longer savable and that is when they throw up their hands and say "it's too late."   This is completely understandable.  

But anyone that has been diagnosed with cancer will tell you, that is when you cry. Like hell. Cry, cry, cry. THEN, you make an appointment for your treatment and you work to extend your chances of being alive in five years from 50% to 60%. Or hope that it will turn out they've got good margins on the tumor and you actually are looking at your ten year survival chances, not five year. Or dare to imagine that a mastectomy will end the cancer and the loss of your breast is all the price you will pay.  And sometimes you cry again. Often times. Because we have a lot to grieve. There is a whole lot that we never will save.  

Grieving is important.  But we must do more than grieve.  We must incorporate the horrible news without becoming dysfunctional. Without losing functioning. Still being able to act.  In the case of climate change, that means recognizing what is left to save.  And knowing that whatever that may be, it is worthy enough, it is valuable enough, to work for.  We cannot be stuck in our pain for what we have lost and simply relate a story of doom.

In the case of climate change, that means recognizing that there is a world of difference between the 4C we are currently headed toward and the 3C the Paris COP21 pledges aim for and the 2C that may be just barely achievable and the 1.5C that might be overshot, and then returned to with negative emissions we don't yet know how to accomplish.  The experts are still recommending a treatment plan:  decarbonization, along with adaptation.  No hospice recommendations yet.

With children to raise, every year, every day, every moment saved is worthy of our efforts.  We may learn that we have a stage 4 diagnosis.  And we may pay the most painful price we can imagine.  But we cannot betray our children by dying without a fight while there is fight still left in us.  

[As a post script, I share the Maori proverb that got me through my own breast cancer diagnosis.  "Turn your face to the sun and the shadows fall behind you."  That proverb never meant to me to ignore my diagnosis.  It meant, instead, that I had to focus on what I could salvage, and later, create out of the devastation.  And, yes, while I lost a breast, and strength in my left arm, I saved my life as a mother, friend and lover.  And, too, I gained wonderful things.  I gained insights into what is truly important to me, I left behind me the things that were harmful.  I learned to accept help and I solidified my friendship with my best friend in before unimaginable ways.  And I started a journey to finding my voice, my beauty and my strength as a woman.  Climate change action is the same.  I try to leave open the door to things I can gain from this journey too.  What?  For me, learning to speak with legislators, finding my voice in writing letters and this blog.  Learning to speak comfortably on the phone, meeting many incredible, dedicated, compassionate people, including the love of my life.  But most importantly, letting my children know that I love them enough to try, and having them tell me they are proud of me.]

How long do we have until we must act on climate change?

Spoiler alert...the answer is both "no time left at all" and "however long it takes."

I am going to try to untangle the numbers that climate scientists and journalists throw around a bit, the very numbers that confused the heck out of me when I started to look seriously at climate change, and confuse many folks still.

First, let's start with all this 1C, 1.5C and 2C warming.  What exactly does that all mean? That means, if you average together all the temperatures around the surface of the globe before 1880, and you compare them to the average global temperatures between 2006 and today, they are warmer today.  Depending on which years you choose (2000-2010, 2005-2015, 2006-2016), our current warming is about 1C or 1.8F.  (This should not be confused with the more terrifying numbers of the warming we have seen when we average only January through July of 2016.  Those amount to 1.38C warming.  This is, we hope, a particularly high number because El Nino is taking extra stored heat out of the ocean and bringing it to the surface right now.  Keep in mind that even in that context, 1.38C is extremely high and should alarm everyone.)

In Paris, in December, almost 200 nations agreed that we need to limit warming to under 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible.  Why?  Well, the scientists are pretty clear that beyond 1.5C warming means utter disruption and severe devastation.  Island nations disappear, coral reef ecosystems cease to be (and the food that they provide for millions of people), extreme weather intensifies, water supplies disappear for many people, food crop yields drop.  We begin to see impacts that will themselves certainly bring greater warming (called a positive feedback).

IPCC's projections of damage at varying levels of warming

That warming is the result of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere up until about 40 years ago.  Keep in mind that greenhouse gases do not make heat.  They trap it like a blanket.  When you are cold in the winter, and you put a blanket on, it takes a while for the heat you are producing to build up, trapped by the blanket, to make you feel warm.  The same is true with global warming, except the heat source is the sun.  We are on a delay and will continue to warm even if we stop burning fossil fuels today.  Stop completely.  We will still warm for another 40 years.  We have "locked in" at least 1.5C warming (2.7F).

That makes it sound like we need to stop burning fossil fuels today.  Like, why am I typing this out on a computer if it is this urgent, today?  Even James Hansen, who arguably understands the urgency as well as anyone on the planet, is using fossil fuels.  Why do people who get the urgency keep saying, we have to cut emissions to zero by 2050?  Why not by tomorrow?

What gives?

Well, here is where the sociopolitical realities meet the physical realities.  The latter is immutable.  The former?  Only stubbornly slowly mutable.

No one is going to turn off the energy.  This isn't some demonstration of humanity's evil side.  Our technologies are things we rightly think should be accessible to the poor, who do not yet have it.  We don't see energy as an evil luxury of wealthy nations that the poorest are noble to go without.  Just consider hospitals and refrigeration alone.  These are not evil things.  And no politician is willing to tell a populace that they must go without them.  I would say, understandably.  Just the simplest example:  we travel to our jobs, where we earn money to care for our children, those same children we are endangering with warming.

The very values that would make us cut emissions are often the very values that drive us to continue to use fossil fuels.  

Here is the beautiful thing:  we could continue to use energy without causing warming.  Everyone should, at this point, agree that is what we need to do.  Continue to refrigerate, heat, cool, drive, but without carbon emissions.

We have the technology to decarbonize our energy systems.  The tools we have available for electricity are solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear.  Transport, home heating and cooling, and much of our industry can convert to electricity.  Agriculture can be done in a way that minimizes fertilizers and reduces meat consumption.  Almost all industry can be carbon free.  (There are some exceptions, and R&D into things like cement, a source of high carbon emissions, are essential).

We have the technology and means to cut almost to zero emissions now without halting all modern civilization.

Turning off technology is not an answer anyone can or will choose.  But decarbonization is.

BUT here is the thorny part.  We can't just turn off gas, oil and coal tonight and wake tomorrow and turn on solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear.  We can't just park our internal combustion engine cars tonight and drive off in EVs tomorrow.

It takes time and money to build the infrastructure.  That's right.  This is basically a question of time and money.

People say we must ban fracking.  I am all for ending fracking.  But to do that, we have to have something to replace it.  Solar and wind are excellent.  But they require sufficient storage and transmission.  (If those are not sufficient, then, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we use gas, which can be turned on and off easily, called "dispatchable.")  Thankfully, Clinton has plans to build up our electrical grid and our energy storage, which will, in fact, permit us to end gas use as a necessary complement to renewables.  But that takes time.

People say we must ban coal.  Coal produces more emissions than any other fossil fuel.  So it is rightly the first to go.  Because we don't have the infrastructure for transmission and storage to complement renewables built yet, when coal plants are shut down, they are often converted into gas plants.  The option?  No energy for the very families we are trying to protect from the ravages of climate change.  So gas comes online as we end coal.  Because gas has lower emissions, we have seen it as a step forward, albeit one rife with problems, not the least of which is fugitive methane.  (Keep in mind, this has been primarily driven by market, simply because gas is so cheap, coal couldn't compete).

People say we must ban nuclear.  This makes no sense to me.  Nuclear energy produces nearly zero carbon emissions.  Keeping our current plants running gives us one less source of energy likely to end up replaced by gas.

People say we must build solar and wind.  Absolutely.  ABSOLUTELY.  But these are intermittent.  Alone, they leave people in the dark if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.  So as we push for renewables, we must also push for a national grid that can move the energy from where the sun shines or wind blows to where it does not, and we must also push for storage like batteries and pumped hydro to keep from when the sun and wind are productive to when they are not.

And we must push for the infrastructure necessary for transport.  Charging stations for electric vehicles, for example.

This all takes time and money.

So here is the bottom line.  We are not going to avoid 1.5C.  We won't.  We likely won't avoid 2C.  (Heck, discussion of staying under 2C was all but given up a few years ago, before Paris gave us newfound hope).  When the nations met in Paris in December, they each pledged to make changes that will allow us to avoid the 4C we are headed toward, and come in around 3C.  They agreed they would work to pledge more each five years, to "ratchet up" efforts.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.

And THAT is what we need to take away.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.  Our job is to get it to move as low as possible by building the infrastructure we need today.

We are now, finally, talking about building the very infrastructure we need to begin decarbonizing. (Hillary Clinton's plans incorporate many of these measures). We must continue to push for that infrastructure:  grid, storage, solar, wind, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and, yes, lifestyle changes.  But we cannot stop to call our desire to raise our children with modern technology evil.  We must continue to value our children's welfare by working as quickly as we can toward cutting emissions.  At this moment, that simply means taking the first steps, and knowing we will be urging more after those first steps are taken.  And accept that we are chasing a moving target.

Infrastructure changes like those that Clinton is proposing will help move that target in the right direction.  And legislative actions like a price on carbon, brought by a progressive voting bloc in Congress, will help speed its movement in that right direction.

Your vote this November may be the single most important action you can take on climate change.  Not because we have no time left, but because we have this time left.

The Clinton Climate Message From this Week

There is a lot to digest from this convention, not the least of which is the vision of a general, authority incarnate, being inclusive of gays, entering big tent politics, to a roaring Democratic Party.  What that might mean for climate action is astounding.  But I will save that for a future post.  

In this one, I will focus on the carefully crafted climate message we heard this week, the one that Hillary believes will resonate with voters. The one that demonstrates strong gains in political will by the climate movement.

What is that message?

(1). Throwing out science denial.  Hillary said  "I believe in science.  I believe climate change is real" and the audience returned a fabulous resounding roar of approval.  

Now listen, no one is truly out of denial. The country is moving through the stages of climate denial at varying rates. 

But the anger at the GOP's outright refusal to deal with it now resonates strongly.  And it's about time. 

(2).  Turn the challenge of climate change into opportunity.  The ad below came out this week. It touches on voter anger with denial momentarily (and highly effectively with great sound effects). But more, it makes it clear, she is going to focus on solutions, not doom. In fact, nearly every time climate was raised this week, the narrative was turning climate challenges into opportunities. 

This is consistent with the research.  There is strong evidence that people will more likely accept the problem of climate change once they feel they can accept the solutions. (There's little that is logical about the human psyche, but there you have it). 

We don't need people to feel doomed. We need them to vote for climate solutions. We need them to see how climate solutions will help them continue to get food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. And, indeed, that's the whole point of averting climate catastrophe in the first place. 

(3). Incorporate solutions into other initiatives. In her speech last night, she said, in the first 100 days she would put jobs at the top of the list.  Included in that list was clean energy jobs. 

She has said she intends to create a climate strategy room in her first 100 days. She has said day 1 was the day she would start to address climate. But in a national speech, she puts that within a jobs program narrative. That's something we at Citizens Climate Lobby do, too, offering our carbon fee as a job creation plan. It's effective with people that don't like to talk climate. 

But she isn't going to refer to climate every day. She is instead going to sew it into the other initiatives she must act on.  And that is okay. Because we need climate considered in every other initiative we take. 

But, once again, it means that it comes to us to raise the big C word every day.   These moves are important. But they will not be enough. They show excellent use of the executive power to drive us toward solutions. But they don't teach our neighbors how dire things are. 

And that will come to us. Not to be angry at her for being responsive to the political will and using experts to craft solutions and messages. But to teach our neighbors that she needs our support in climate action and that we need legislators that will hand her even stronger solutions that she can sign into law. And, yes, to move her and us and everyone else a little further out of denial. 

Here is the climate ad that she put out this week.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_ZwguLJVxsM