Capitol Hill

What the IPCC Scientists Said about Climate Change and the State of the Planet

2008-04-29T19:40:00Z

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to assess the best available scientific, economic, social, and technical information on climate change, for the purpose of providing policymakers with an objective source of information on these complex issues.

Participation on the IPCC is open to all members of UNEP and WMO, and convenes about once per year. Membership includes 113 nations. The IPCC is organized in three Working Groups:

Working Group I studies the basic science behind climate change;
Working Group II assesses the impacts of climate change and the vulnerability of socio-economics and natural systems; and
Working Group III addresses options for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impact of climate change.

A Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories provides information to all groups.

The IPCC produces reports and technical papers that serve as reference materials for policy makers and scientists. More than 2500 scientists contribute to the Working Groups and publications, which are reviewed by representatives of member countries before release. Assessment Reports are the most comprehensive of the IPCC publications, of which there have been four: 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007.

The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (the Report) develops the information garnered in the first three reports, and provides longitudinal analysis of the effects greenhouse gases are having on climate change, and the anthropogenic (human-induced) contribution to warming. This report goes much further than the 2001 report, stating with more than 90% certainty that it is very likely that the observed and documented warming of the earth over the past fifty years has been caused by human activity. The human contribution to climate change has been a result of increasing use of fossil fuels and the conversion of land for agriculture and urbanization.

The release of the Report has resulted in worldwide consensus that it is indisputable that we are experiencing a global warming of the sea, earth, and atmosphere. Observed evidence of this warming include eleven of the last twelve years among the twelve hottest recorded, the retreat of mountain glaciers and snow cover, and more intense and longer lasting droughts in the last thirty years.

Warming has farther reaching consequences than what it is doing to natural systems. Warmer days and heat waves, an imbalance in heavy precipitation and drought events, and increased typhoons and flooding impact agriculture, water resources, human health, industry, and population migration patterns. The Report gives key findings on impacts that are expected, broken down by systems and sectors.

Some specific highlights that are new in this fourth assessment include:

Water stored in glaciers and snow cover will decline, reducing available water in those regions supplied by meltwater.
One-sixth of the world population lives in such areas; as extreme weather events become more intense and more frequent, their impact will extend beyond those sectors directly impacted into other areas not directly hit by such events;
Imbalance in the negative and positive health impacts caused by warming will be regionally distributed, which will shape not only health, but education, population, and economic development.

The shifting weather patterns resulting from climate change will not impact all geographic areas equally. In the colder northern regions where there is a short growing season, the overall warming will benefit agriculture and forestry systems, potentially with a net benefit to those living in these areas. In the equatorial regions, however, warmer temperatures will reduce precipitation, altering tropical ecosystems and exacerbating the water hardships of desert regions.

For islands, the warming of the oceans causes problems for multiple reasons. By the 2080s, it is expected that glacial melting in colder regions - Antarctica and Greenland, notably - will cause millions of people each year to be flooded out of low-lying regions due to rising sea-levels. The increased temperatures will cause expansion of sea water volume, additionally causing sea levels to rise, encroaching on coastal areas and engulfing territory. Increased storm intensity will also subject these islands with increasing damage from typhoons and hurricanes. But it's not just expanding seas that threaten shorelines. The Report identifies Asian and African islands as those that will be most vulnerable to sea-level rise.

Whatever small advantages high-lying colder regions may experience, the Report's findings are that the overall impact of climate change will be a net loss rather than a gain. And regardless of geographic location, it will be the poorest of the world that will suffer the most from climate change - and the least able to mitigate and adapt to the changes. The social, political, and infrastructure pressures of already tenuous populations becoming rapidly displaced, many of them young and many in fragile public health conditions, has not yet been fully calculated.

The Fourth Assessment Report provides an analysis of response to climate change. Immediate reduction of emissions is a must. Although current carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will continue to contribute to additional warming, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere must be reduced. Mitigation of the effects of climate change to reduce the impact must also be undertaken. And although the report does not state that it can fully compensate for the path we are on, adaptation will also be necessary to address the unavoidable impacts of global warming. New approaches to design and engineering, and even agriculture and forestry, are making it possible for some to weather the changes brought on by warming. But the report acknowledges that there are barriers and limits to how far adaptation can compensate for the changes that will leave many in a very vulnerable position.

It is clear in reading the assessment reports that immediate and various policy measures must be taken nationally and internationally - and that there is no time to spare in committing to reduction, mitigation, and adaptation.

All of the Assessment Reports and other special reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can be found online at this website: www.ipcc.ch

Prepared for Live Green, Live Smart by Rosamund Mische John

How to Keep Track of the Environmental and Climate Policies of the Field of Presidential Candidates

2008-01-02T02:51:00Z

Well, it's quite a horse race. Hard as it is to keep track of who's on first in the presidential primaries, it's even harder to stay up to date with where each candidate ranks environmental and planetary climate issues. It seems that most of them, democrats and republicans alike, have waited as long as possible to make any statement at all about their views and commitment to mitigating global climate change and environmental degradation. What can those of us serious about more sustainable lifestyles and public policies do? Well, when pollsters call you, refuse to answer unless they will listen to you ask for information about the candidate's position on climate change and resource protection. Call candidates offices, and ask whoever is taking calls to have one of the policy people call you back (they may not return your call, but if a lot of us ask, they will start to feel nervous about their neglect of the issue). Send emails to candidates campaign websites, demanding their platform on the environment. Tell those you won't support because of their position (or lack of one) why. And you can keep track via this feature on the Grist.org website: http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html?source=most_popular This time around may be our best shot - and maybe our last chance - to make our political scene responsive to urgent planetary environmental issues that will shape life - and politics - for many human generations.

Greening the (Nation's) Capitol

2007-09-24T17:05:00Z

People often wonder why Congress is so comfortable passing laws that promote policies that the House and Senate do not themselves seem much bothered to adhere to. The environmental impact of Congress itself, as an institution, had more or less escaped scrutiny until recently, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would undertake a green initiative to reduce that body's carbon impact.

This effort is itself formidable: Congressional office buildings and the Capitol building itself are aging, of various ages and technologies that present issues in almost every area of environmental concern one can name: insulation, asbestos abatement, window performance, scads of lightbulbs of every age and variety, heating and cooling systems that are often clumsy retrofits or inefficient leftovers from the days of cheap oil and carbon-obliviousness.

Taking the House building complex carbon neutral is not politically neutral, either. The House power plant is fueled with coal, and members representing coal states are not thrilled by the prospect of declaring a staple of their states' economies deemed obsolete and undesireable by the nation's legislative branch.

The House's chief administrative officer, Daniel P. Beard, provided Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer a Preliminary Report on the Green the Capitol Initiative. In that report, five areas of focus are recommended for making the House complex a "showcase for sustainability;" these recommendations take into consideration changes in everything from lightbulbs and photocopies to vehicles and vendors.

The Preliminary Report can downloaded as a pdf file from Live Green, Live Smart's Library.

So Others Might Eat: Climate Emergency Fast 9/4

2007-08-21T18:31:00Z

Dear Friends,

As global warming rapidly intensifies, the prospect of much more extensive
hunger worldwide becomes increasingly likely, especially in poor countries,
due to drought, Katrina-like storms, glacial melting and sea level rise.
These impacts will lead to crop failures and economic and social disruption
on a massive scale.

To draw attention to this threat and its moral implications, we are calling
on thousands of concerned citizens to voluntarily give up food for one day
on September 4th, 2007. Other participants will fast even longer beginning
on that date, some for weeks. Our appeal to you is to consider joining us in
this climate initiative called, "So Others Might at: The Climate Emergency
Fast." Give up food for one day now to draw attention to the fact that
others may have no food tomorrow unless we halt global warming.

September 4th is the day Congress returns from its summer recess. What
better way to mark that day than with a small personal sacrifice meant to
send an urgent message: It's time for our national leaders to take action to
solve the climate threat!

*Register for the fast>>* <http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/>
Visit http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/ to sign up

Fasting is a simple yet profound way of combining the spiritual and the
political. Mahatma Gandhi called it "the sincerest form of prayer." It
communicates seriousness and urgency without violence, thereby focusing
peoples' attention on the issues of the fast.

The overwhelming urgency of the climate situation is motivating this call.
We don't think the climate movement can accept that there will be little of
substance coming out of this Congress while President Bush is in office. We
can't, in essence, let Congress off the hook for another two years. We must
do as much as we can, we must push ourselves to do more than we're used to
doing, to step it up now.

What will we be calling for? Three things: no new coal or coal-to-liquid
plants; freeze greenhouse gas emissions and move quickly to reduce them; and
a down payment of $25 billion for energy conservation, efficiency and
renewable energy.

Our hope is that this fast will generate the kind of media coverage and
grassroots response sufficient to pressure Congress to act quickly and
decisively.

Won't you join us? You can do so by clicking
here<http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/>or by visiting
http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/.

For future generations,

Raya Ariella, Climate Crisis Coalition
Medea Benjamin, Code Pink
Brent Blackwelder, Friends of the Earth
Alli Chagi-Starr, Ella Baker Center/Art in Action
Ted Glick, U.S. Climate Emergency Council
Eban Goodstein, Focus the Nation
Connie Hogarth, Climate Crisis Coalition
Jonathan Isham, Middlebury College
Van Jones, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Tom Kelly, Kyoto USA
Jan Lundberg, Culture Change
Fr. Paul Mayer, Climate Crisis Coalition
Bill McKibben, author
David Merrill, GlobalWarmingSolutions.org
Gael Murphy, Code Pink
Billy Parish, Energy Action Coalition
Dave Robinson, Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement
Belvie Rooks, Carrie Productions, Inc.
Rabbi Warren Stone, Environmental Chair, Central Conference of American
Rabbis
Mike Tidwell, U.S. Climate Emergency Council
Josh Tulkin, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Liz Veazey, Southern Energy Network, a founding member of Energy Action
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Hip Hop Caucus

(Organizations Listed for Identification Purposes)

Celebrity Eco-Power

2007-05-24T17:19:00Z

This past December I happened to catch an Oprah show featuring Al Gore and his then-new documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Having seen and been energized by the documentary months earlier, I was initially pleased that the film was getting attention from someone who has such a great influence over US culture, behavior, and attitude. I was so happy to see that mainstream broadcast television was dedicating an entire hour to the topic of climate change. After watching for a few minutes – watching Oprah and the audience’s wide-eyed reactions, their murmurs of shock and revelation – I became agitated and angry and started to question why Oprah was just now addressing this issue, and why these people were behaving as if they were being introduced to a planetary crisis for the very first time.

The Kyoto Protocol (an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, commiting ratified parties to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases) was negotiated in 1997; the first global conference to discuss the changing climate, the World Climate Conference, was held in 1979; and the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970, the same year that the well known 3 arrow recycling symbol was designed. So why did it take that most influential broadcaster of all – Oprah Winfrey – until 2006 to catch on to the trend and introduce people to the fact of climate change and the human contribution to it? I decided to just be grateful she is on board, and I expected to see a new energy and enthusiasm in the media. I figured the Oprah website would tip the tide in favor of survival.

A few days after the broadcast, I checked the Oprah.com website to take a look at the message board for this particular show, and was both encouraged and horrified by the postings. Encouraged by the number of people showing enthusiasm and expressing their readiness to take action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and alter their consumption habits. Horrified by the number of people who continue to think that this is an us vs them issue – the United States vs the developing world – and that we, residents of the richest country on Earth, should feel justified in delaying responsive action because we can’t force China or India to make the same sacrifices! China and India are not even in the same pollution league as the US; they don’t have the same history of global polluting and over-consumption of resources as we have in the US.

I believe that if people are presented with truthful information, proper motivation, and a sense of empowerment to make a change, they will take responsibility to change their lives and their habits, and ownership of the consequences of their actions. Climate change is more than big businesses dumping poisons into the air; it is regular people turning on their lights, driving their cars, and consuming in excess. It’s all of us allowing and encouraging the ongoing degradation of our own home through daily consumer decisions we make because we can and because we are waiting on the other guy.

Let me get back to Oprah: One show not long before the Gore appearance discussed the spiritual void that people in the United States say they feel. The featured guests talked about the consumption and excess Americans participate in to try to fill this void. The consumption that Americans are stuffing this void with is killing not only our spirits, but our planet and our future as well – and we are allowing our worse nature and our politicians to persuade us to wait around for the other guy – China, India, Thailand, for heavens sake – to do the right thing before we agree to save our own lives.

But behavior change is difficult. To monitor our resource consumption and make even small sacrifices is hard to sustain beyond a few days or weeks. So it is especially important for visible, influential people and media to keep climate change, conservation, and the danger of our unmindful consumption at the front of the minds of Americans. This is a global problem, and a big one at that, but that does not take either the responsibility or the solution entirely out of the hands of “regular” people. We need to have Oprah and Al and Simon and Conan and Rosie help make saving the planet and the most vulnerable residents of it hip, chic, sexy, popular – and they can’t wait around for rating sweeps week.

The earth is a global commons, providing benefit to all, but at the risk of exploitation and abuse as well. To ignore the current emergency and turn our backs on an opportunity to improve our own lives, the lives of others living with us around the world, and the lives of future, fellow Earth citizens would be a tragedy indeed. It is time to step up the level and intensity of commitment that we have to conserving natural resources and mitigating the damage of our ill-informed ways.