Science and Climate Change Policy

here is a 2 piece article I wrote for the Atmospheric Sciences Newsletter for the American Geophysical Union. The first part covers the National Academy of Science and a bill being debated in Congress on climate legislation. The second is a more subjective overview of how useful/realistic the bill is.

What is the role of science in climate change policy?
Climate change policy is making headlines and generating heated debate recently, particularly regarding a cap and trade program in the U.S. On the forefront is the balance between mitigating and adapting to climate change, and protecting a faltering U.S. economy. The decisions that will ultimately be made require input from experts in many fields, and the National Academy of Science (NAS) has been asked for advice on climate change policy. While it is essential for policy-makers to be informed of the science behind the decisions they face, it is a precarious situation for scientists to be asked which course of action to follow.

In 2008, Congress asked the NAS (along with NOAA) to investigate and study climate change and to “make recommendations regarding what steps must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to global climate change, including science and technology challenges thereof.” Giving advice is why President Lincoln originally set up the Academy in 1863. The initial act creating the NAS charged it with investigating, examining, experimenting, and reporting on any scientific subject when called to do so by the government.

In response to Congress’ request, the NAS initiated a suite of studies called America’s Climate Choices (http://americasclimatechoices.org/index.shtml), which includes panels on limiting, adapting to, and researching climate change, and informing effective decisions and actions regarding climate change. The scientists involved plan to release a series of consensus reports later this year or early in 2010. The NAS also held a Summit on March 30 and 31 in Washington in order to discuss the U.S. response to climate change. Several hundred scientists, members of Congress, business leaders, and representatives of NGOs were in attendance.

Meanwhile, on March 31, Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) proposed a bill that addresses clean energy, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a clean energy economy. The bill is called the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009. The bill would require a transition to cap and trade and set target aggregate U.S. GHG emissions at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, beginning with modest changes over the next few years (3% (20%) below 2005 levels in 2012 (2020)).

The difficulty for NAS is two-fold. There is a fine line between reporting on the science behind policy and giving prescriptive advice on which policy to pursue. The first problem is defining that line.

The second problem is the timeline. The House Energy and Commerce Committee began debate on the ACES Act on April 22 (Earth Day), but the reports from America’s Climate Choices aren’t scheduled to be released until the end of the year. On the other hand, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on April 21 that climate legislation will be passed this year, and then said on April 22 that it will be ready a year from now (Eilperin, 2009). Either way, a summary report from the NAS could prove beneficial for the House debates, perhaps overviewing the science and progress discussed at the Summit in March.

AGU’s position statement on Human Impacts on Climate states that, in regard to climate change, scientists should strive “to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.” In regard to Congress’ request from the NAS on advice on bills such as the proposed ACES Act, the Academy can take a similar approach – research the underlying climate change and technologies and clearly communicate their findings, all the while paying close attention to the line between objectivity and subjectivity. While this can be difficult, it is of extreme importance.

Sidebar: Putting the proposed ACES Act of 2009 into perspective
Are the emissions suggested aggressive enough to curb “dangerous” levels of climate change?
Juan Añel (now the Editor-in-Chief of this newsletter) wrote a relevant article to this question called “New energy and climate change strategy presented by the EU Commission” in Volume 1, Number 2 of the AS Newsletter. In it, he summarized the report from a EU Commission, which states “that global warming has to be limited to no more than 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature to prevent dangerous levels of climate change.”

The ACES Act would set U.S. targeted emissions at 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. According to the EU Commission, emissions from developed nations need to be reduced by an average of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. However, as of 2006, the U.S. increased emissions by 14% since 1990. A 20% reduction from 2005 levels would be only roughly 8% below 1990 levels.

On the other hand, according to the EU Commission’s report, global emissions need to be 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. The proposed reduction of 83% of 2005 levels would be much greater than 50% from 1990 levels. This is an ambitious goal, but it would allow for developing nations to cut their emissions relatively less between now and 2050. However, it remains to be seen if modest decreases over the next decade will be enough to prevent 2°C warming over the next several decades. Although the proposed bill should be applauded (from an emissions-cutting standpoint) for its 2050 goal, the 2020 goal may be a case of too little too late.

Is it realistic to expect an 83% cut in emissions by 2050?
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were the equivalent of approximately 6.1 GtCO2 in 2006. Meeting an 83% reduction would require the average American’s emissions to drop from 20 tons of CO2/year to 3.4 tons/year, assuming no population change. The good news is that the reduction could start small under the Waxman-Markey bill, which would also provide benefits such as “green” job generation and decreased American dependence on foreign oil. The EPA has estimated that the national economy would continue to grow under the bill between 2015 and 2030 (from $15 trillion to $22 trillion), although the average U.S. household would see an increased expense of $98 to $140 a year.

Rob Socolow and Stephen Pacala, co-directors of Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative, proposed 15 strategies that are currently commercially available which could each prevent the emission of 25 GtC over the next 50 years [Pacala and Socolow, 2004]. According to their paper, stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is possible if global emissions stay below 8 GtC/year for the next 50 years. If work begins now, they argue, by 2055 we will have the technology to then begin decreasing global emissions. Naturally, emissions from developing countries will increase as population grows, which leaves it up to developed nations like the U.S. to strongly cut emissions, particularly over the next 50 years. Seeing how these technologies are available today, and that the U.S. is a wealthy nation despite recent economic woes, an 83% decrease by 2050 indeed seems feasible both financially and technologically.

Sources:
Añel, J. (2007), New energy and climate change strategy presented by the EU Commission, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section Newsletter, 1(2), 3.
Eilperin, J. (Apr. 23, 2009), House panel begins debate on climate bill, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042202006.html
EPA: 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004), Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies, Science, 305, 968-972.
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990-2006.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600004891#beg

Global Climate Change undergraduate course

Hello??!! Anyone out there? I haven't posted to this blog in months, but am planning on posting a recap of the undergraduate course I am wrapping up teaching. It is an entry-level class on global climate change, and is unique because it is about a quarter's worth of material covered in just 3-1/2 weeks! Insane!

This has been my first teaching experience and was/is overall positive. But it has been hard developing the course material as we go (I am co-teaching it with a geology professor). So I want to have a day-to-day record of what we did. Maybe I won't put it all on this blog (some of my presentations are huge), but I can put the outline of what was covered, selected readings, maybe assignments. If by some miracle a person who is planning a similar course comes across this, email me if you want more specifics and I'd love to share: abharper@atmos.colostate.edu.

At the bottom is the 16 topics we've covered. Over the next week or so, while this is still fresh in my mind, I'll be posting (ideally) once for each topic.
Here is some info about the course from the syllabus:
Goals and Scope of the Course
The goal of this course is to give you an understanding of how climate works and how climate is changing. You will learn about climate from a whole-earth point of view – taking into account interactions between the atmosphere, terrestrial biosphere, cryosphere, and oceans. We will, of course, study current climate change, but will also consider historical climate change and natural climate variability, and the impacts of these changes on societies and ecosystems. We will discuss climate models, climate predictions, and the concept of uncertainty as it pertains to the climate system.

Aside from these hard goals, we expect you to leave this class better prepared to interpret scientific data and results. This is a valuable tool whether you plan to become a scientist, teacher, politician … etc.

Schedule:
Each day’s lectures, labs, and discussions will be based upon a question that we wish to answer. By the end of the course, you should be able to answer or have a discussion about any of these questions. Also, the course will be broken up into 4 sections: the climate engine, causes of change, past change, and humans and climate.

What is the energy budget of the earth's surface?
How is heat transported around the world?
What is the importance of the carbon cycle?
What are feedbacks, and how do they work?
Why isn’t climate constant long term?
How has human society been impacted by climate change in the past?
Why is knowledge of past climate change useful?
What is a climate model and how is it useful?
Why isn’t climate constant short term?
How do humans act as agents of change?
How certain are we that current change is human-induced?
What is expected to change, and where?
What can we do about climate change and what are the responsibilities to the impacted?
What are some ways to engineer the climate and how are they physically possible?
What are some ways to engineer the climate and are they politically/ethically possible?
What are alternatives to carbon-based energy?