Environmental Community Responds to IPCC Report on Global Warming
As Maria reported this morning, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did release the findings of Working Group III today, which focuses on the steps the global community must take to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
On one hand, the report was hopeful: we can lessen the effects of global warming with quick, substantive, mandatory action by the world's governments. Furthermore, the costs of such actions would be relatively low, and much of the technology needed already exists. On the other hand, the report does recommend the use of advanced nuclear power (let the arguments on this one begin!), and carbon capture and storage, which is not a fully developed technology.
We've gathered some of the responses to today's report, and provided excerpts below. Please let us know about others in the comments.
Environmental Defense: “We have a window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever,” said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at Environmental Defense . “Anyone pushing for delay is pushing for higher costs and longer odds.”
The Apollo Alliance: “The experts agree. If we act now, we can win the fight on global warming. As today’s IPCC report shows, with strong leadership and the right solutions, we can tackle the challenge of global warming while also creating new opportunities for jobs and growth through increased economic activity.
“By expanding the production of biofuels, we can promote energy security, strengthen our trade position and create jobs in agricultural communities. By investing in renewable electricity we will create economic activity while decreasing air pollution and its associated health care costs. And by making wise investments in new technology, we can reinvigorate our economy though the creation of good, new clean energy jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors.
“We can no longer ignore the facts. Global warming is happening, and if left untreated, the effects will be devastating for our planet and future generations. We have the solutions, now let’s fulfill our responsibility as Americans and international citizens and do everything we can to reduce global warming pollution.” — Apollo Alliance president Jerome Ringo
National Wildlife Federation: “The world’s scientific experts are giving us all the information we need. This latest report provides unmistakable clarity that we must act now, and that solutions are within reach to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
“Global warming is happening now. Our dependency on fossil fuels like oil and coal is causing the problem, and humans and wildlife are feeling the heat. We have a clear path to move forward with solutions that will curb rising global warming pollution, but only if we act with leadership and resolve.
“Scientists are telling us that we must start reducing global warming pollution immediately to limit further warming. Only by acting now can we prevent catastrophic environmental and economic damage that our children will otherwise face. America can do this if we set our mind to it.
“To limit global warming, we must start now and put ourselves on track to reduce pollution by two percent each and every year, ultimately cutting pollution by 80 percent by mid-century. We can do that." — NWF President Larry Schweiger
National Audubon Society: “This latest report from the world’s scientists makes it clear that people and governments have it within their power to curb global warming, but that time is running short. Humans caused the problem, and it’s up to humans to fix it.
“There is much good news here and even reason for optimism if we listen and heed the call to action. The report confirms that many of the technologies we need to address the problem already exist and simply need to be deployed in a serious way. The U.S. can start filling the scientists’ prescription by rapidly adopting emissions caps, renewable electricity standards, energy conservation measures, and improving fuel efficiency.
“The report makes it clear that voluntary measures have had no effect—these cannot be take ‘em or leave ‘em approaches. The world’s best scientists are telling us that it will take serious changes backed by the force of law if we want to minimize the risk to people and wildlife" — Audubon Society President John Flicker
National Environmental Trust: "After all the bad news from scientists on global warming, today we got some good news. The IPCC said that we can avert the worst impacts at a remarkably low price. The U.S. and the world simply need to make more efficient use of our energy and invest in cleaner technologies for the future.
"This newest report confirms that a small investment now is far better than bankrupting the treasury later by trying to build sea walls from Miami to Maine. " — Vice President for Climate Programs Angela Anderson
BioFuels Watch (UK): "It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate." — Almuth Ernsting
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): “The longer we wait, the more we will pay to fix this problem. The solutions are here. What we need is the leadership to make it happen,” said Daniel Lashof, PhD, the science director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The cost of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies pales in comparison to the sweeping impacts on our health and our economy if we continue to do nothing.”
“The IPCC has now completed its triple crown,” Lashof added. “The world’s leading scientists have told us that heat-trapping pollution is causing global warming, that global warming threatens unprecedented disruption of our way of life, and now most importantly that we know how to solve the problem. There are simply no more excuses for denial and delay.”
Friends of the Earth: “The report looks like a compromise rather than a serious plan. It offers something for everyone without making the tough choices,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. “Some of these recommendations make a lot of sense, but unfortunately, some of them—especially the push for nuclear power—move us in the wrong direction. Nuclear power threatens humans and the environment. It is not necessary to combat climate change.” …
“The IPCC got a number of things right,” Blackwelder said. “Increasing energy efficiency and using clean energy sources such as wind power are steps that can be taken right now to reduce global warming—without damaging other parts of the environment. Let’s focus on those measures, and not nuclear power, which has such harmful side effects.”
U.S. PIRG: “This report provides a roadmap on how to avoid the worst effects of global warming, but we have to start moving right now,” said Ben Dunham, Staff Attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “The sooner we act, the sooner we start improving energy security, creating jobs, and protecting future generations from the worst effects of global warming,” he added.
Of course, we're also interested in your response… fire away!
May 5th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Higher fuel efficiency standards, elimination of coal fired power plants or sequestration of the resulting carbon, and more use of solar power are a must and should begin as quickly as feasible. Even more nuclear fission power plants, built according to the latest and safest designs, may be needed in the short (several decades) term. Wind power will help, but careful siting is important to avoid visual and sound pollution, as well as a serious threat to migratory birds. If nuclear fusion development can be somehow expedited, it should be. (I understand the problem here is that solar interior pressures cannot be reproduced on earth, requiring temperatures much higher than the solar interior. Cold fusion may, therefore, be the only practical way.)
Unfortunately, some big-brother type methods may not be avoidable, at least in the near-term. These involve carbon emission ceilings and trading–within limits–not only at the national and industrial level, but at the individual consuming unit (usually family) level. Thus, one would have to account for all carbon emitting usage on an annual basis, somewhat like filing one’s income tax. This would not necessarily involve counting everyone’s incandescent light bulbs, SUV’s or plasma TV’s. It should suffice to use utility (adjusted for the carbon efficiency of the producers) and fuel bill tracking, along with airline, train and bus tickets, major appliance purchases, estimated food, clothing and small appliance purchases, as well as battery and chemical purchases to give an approximate estimate of each family’s carbon usage. Each manufacturer/supplier could then deduct any carbon deficits attributable to trackable consumption of their products or services from their own deficits. In any case, the annual usage both of businesses and consumers, adjusted downward for any purchased carbon rights, would have to be less than or equal to the allotment established by law. Because of the inherent contententiosness of such matters, I think carbon allocations would only be accepted in the U.S., however reluctantly–like the income tax–if established by legislated law rather than by administrative regulation.
In the end, the seawalls (and migrations) may still be needed, I’m afraid; though the above measures should somewhat mitigate the disruption.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:02 am
My guess would be that it was essential to include nuclear and CCS (carbon capture and storage) in order to get consensus on the document, regardless of the degree to which they may or may not be ready for immediate deployment.
I, of course, am a firm believer in wind power as an essential part of the solution. It’s 100% clean, cost-effective, and readily available today across much of the U.S. and in many other countries around the world. What is needed are long-term policies to make it happen.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com
May 5th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Cool, So … By reducing this and that ny this and that amount then this and that amount of the global warming may be averted. Well done!
Then also by doing this and that we may also teleport to new locations in the universe!
Is it possible that in doing so we need a little more detail than “Gee we have windows, opportunities, etc”.
How about a report saying “WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS ….” no speculation and bull! There is no point saying we “could” do … , but no one does!
Well done earth-people.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Absolutely - we need a firm plan to fight global warming. The job of the IPCC is not to write policy, but to present the options to policymakers. Now it's time for our elected officials - and each of us - to figure out the best way for ourselves, our communities, our state, and our nation to fight climate change.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
We at Connecticut Real Estate and Construction have not the time to waste while the G8 deliberate picayune details about what sorts and how much of greenhouse gasses are allowable, and who was going to conform or not.
One might ask, what is the hurry? The hurry is: we humans are in the process of destroying our planet. Global warming is the single most significant environmental crisis the world community has ever seen. The 2007 G8 Summit in Germany will focus on the reversal of global warming. President Bush, of course opposes this proposal. Like his strategy in the Middle East, he has a better idea, and he wants to convince the world of something they already know is untrue. This time it’s not that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that global warming is not that dire an issue.
Our Nero-like President fiddles, but we cannot allow our Rome to go up in flames. This isn’t a city’s destruction we speak of. It is the end of all of us, of history, of every thought and feeling humankind ever produced. Our present federal government is not going to do anything about this crisis.
Connecticut Real Estate and Construction will do something about it, because Connecticut needs GREEN workforce housing in significant number for very important reasons. Suburban sprawl is killing the environment. When we continually clear off two acres per household to put up large houses, we cut down trees which produce oxygen, we deplete the filtering system for our water, and we make houses which leave a carbon footprint which further opens a hole in the ozone. If we instead build multiple units together and build them with solar photovoltaic cell panels and with geothermal heating and cooling, we leave virtually no carbon footprint, we leave sufficient greenery to filter water run-off, and we provide our workforce with housing that allows them to stay in the state and not flee to the South and Southwest as has been the recent trend. As a result, those businesses (and their tax revenues) which require those workers need not flee with the workforce, a trend we have seen throughout the Northeast region of the country.
Additionally, we will build elderly housing. The Boomer Generation is aging. They are retiring at record rates and require specific housing that does not exist in sufficient number. We will build it. We will build commercial buildings and office space to go along with the elderly and workforce housing. We need cooperation from local governments to achieve our goals, and we need that cooperation quickly. As we move forward, we will build with town tax rolls in mind. We are aware that the workforce housing will require significant services and expenses, most notably educational expenses. This is why mixing the elderly housing with the workforce balances the ledger, for the elderly pay taxes without sending children to schools. Further, the commercial and office buildings will bring in significant tax revenues without pulling out revenues from the local municipality. This formula is referred to as “Smart Growth” and is to be part of our plans
While proposing “caution” and “care” is rarely foolhardy advice, studies on these issues have already been done and “smart growth” is necessary throughout the state and the country. We cannot wait. The cost is too dear for all of us to sit idly by and fiddle away time as the planet goes up in flames.