Author: climate2021steve

Why Policy Matters

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

Many times, when we confront environmental challenges, they are often presented as shortcomings of our personal choices. We are told to use less, to recycle, to change our personal habits, in order to “save the planet”.

This idea is nonsense.

Environmental challenges, like so many others, are systemic challenges and therefore require systemic fixes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of changing our individual behaviors for the better of the environment (and society). I encourage everyone to examine their own habits on a regular basis and find ways to improve. This is hardly limited to environmental habits.

But, if we rely on individuals to make changes, without changing the systems, we will fail. We know this for certain because we’ve tried it many times before.

I won’t go into a long explanation of systemic thinking and systemic issues (if you’re curious, I highly recommend “Thinking in Systems” by Donella Meadows), but it’s important to understand the basics.

Everything we do is part of a system. The way we build our houses, the way food is grown, the way Oscar nominees are decided, the way we punish criminals, the way we elect politicians, all of it is part of a system. The system itself creates the outcomes, good or bad.

Racism is perpetuated by a system. (actually, quite a few systems). Pollution is also perpetuated by systems.(The intersection of racism and pollution is something called environmental racism. The opposite of environmental racism is environmental justice).

The way we start to change systems is by changing policy. Of course, we can’t just legislate and expect immediate results. But bad policy that perpetuates bad systems will make things worse. Good policy that works to improve the system will make things better. I realize this is pretty vague, but bear with me.

Carbon emissions are created by a group of systems. The energy system, the agricultural system, the real estate system, the industrial and transportation systems, etc. If we really want to lower carbon emissions, we must identify the ways in which systems create emissions and then adjust the systems themselves.

I’ll use one concrete example: the airline industry. Airlines and their associated systems are not (usually) required to account for their carbon emissions. Flying is one of the most GHG intensive activities we do and yet airlines and airline passengers are allowed to send their carbon emissions into the atmosphere free of charge. In order to solve this problem, we have to either:

1. Require that airlines offset all their carbon emissions (this is called command and control) or

2. Make emitting carbon so expensive that airlines can’t compete on the open market (this is a carbon price or carbon tax) or

3. Come up with some other policy that forces, either through coercion or some other means, airlines to offset their emissions.

But can’t individual passengers either choose not to fly or choose to offset their own personal emissions? Of course. And for those to believe that individual freedom trumps all other things, this sounds like a good idea. But anyone with even a mild familiarity with human behavior would realize that not everyone is going to do this. We know because passengers can already do this and very few choose to.

Individual choice makes people feel good, but it doesn’t solve the problem. System change, brought about by policy and advocacy, is the only reliable way to fix system problems. Understanding that is paramount if we really want to do anything serious about climate or any of the other systemic problems we face.

International Women’s Day 2021

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

On this International Women’s Day, I’d like to give a shout out to the millions of women and girls who are working to slow climate change. Of course, there are some very famous women out there like Greta Thunberg, who are household names. But, if you’ve spent any time in or around climate activism, you know that the climate movement owes its very existence to women and girls.

At every level, from the White House to townhalls, from boardrooms to the streets, women and girls are working towards a more habitable future, often without much recognition or resources. Of course, among these is my amazing wife, Rebecca Collins who works every day to buy us more time to solve this problem.

I’ve seen this with my own eyes time and time again. One day it’s a rally organized by teen girls, the next it’s an strategy call run by retired women. Everywhere you look, women and girls are leading the way. I can’t express how grateful I am for the work that they have done and continue to do.

Ecological Restoration is Climate Mitigation

~ climate2021steve ~ 1 Comment

Ecological restoration is a critical aspect of climate mitigation. Ecological destruction, habitat loss, and biodiversity decline are all intimately linked with climate change. As the planet warms, the higher temperatures are exacerbating ecological degradation, and as we destroy ecosystems, we are often turning natural carbon sinks into new carbon sources. The restoration of natural ecosystems like kelp forests, grasslands, jungles, bogs, and of course mangroves, can remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it (what we refer to as a carbon sink).

Photo by Ben Stern on Unsplash

Restoring ecosystems also helps us adapt to the extreme weather patterns. Many ecosystems provide protection from extreme weather (this is something called an “ecosystem service”). For example, oyster reefs provide protection against storm surges, which is one reason why New York City is trying to build a one billion oyster reef in New York Harbor by 2035 (which would still be only 1/3 as large as it was 200 years ago). Xeriscaping, or landscaping meant to mimic the desert environment, uses less water than a typical lawn, which makes desert cities more resilient against droughts. This is why Las Vegas plans to reduce the amount of grass citywide by 40%. There are countless other examples.

What exactly would restoration look like in your community? Well, it depends on the location. Perhaps it means planting native trees or removing impervious surfaces and replacing them with vegetation. Maybe it means removing a damn from a river to allow for a natural flow or cutting down on pollution coming from construction or agriculture. Maybe it means reintroducing large herbivores or carnivores onto a landscape, which is what several Appalachian states are doing with Elk. It could even mean the use of genetically engineering to restore endangered species, which is what some scientists hope to do with the American Chestnut in the Eastern US.

States are restoring animals like elk to their former range.
Photo by Andrew Ly on Unsplash

No matter where you live, there are probably groups who are working on projects like these right in your community. These groups are always looking for volunteers, and even small amounts of money can go a long way. If you have a yard, you have the opportunity to transform some of your lawn into native habitat. Lawns are an ecological disaster. They provide no habitat, absorb very little runoff, and sequester no carbon. Planting bushes or trees, native flowers, or growing vegetables are all more beneficial to the environment than keeping a manicured, uniform lawn.

But we have to think bigger than this as well. Ecological systems are big, interconnected, and complex. Climate change is a global problem, and we must tackle ecological restoration on a global scale, particularly because many of the most important places, like Brazil, Congo, or Indonesia, are poor countries with ineffective governments, who lack the financial resources to address their problems. It is incumbent upon the wealth nations of the world to finance ecological restoration in developing nations, particularly because rich nations are driving the extraction of resources which causes the destruction in the first place.

Ecological restoration and climate mitigation are not exactly the same, but progress on one will mean progress on the other. As we restore ecosystems, they help us mitigate the effects of extreme weather, and they sequester carbon. As we reduce our carbon emissions, we slow the destruction of our environment. This is referred to as a “feedback loop”. This means we can address two problems at the same time. It also means, however, that if we ignore one, we make it harder to address the other. We can’t separate these two things into different problems, they are two interwoven.

Misinformation and Climate

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

Today I want to talk about how misinformation is infecting our dialogue on climate. There is one recent and kind of fascinating lie that I’d like to use as an example.

It starts with an obscure academic study focused on a hypothetical, then it travels to a British tabloid and finally the American kings of climate misinformation, Fox News.

If you watch late night TV, you may have seen the story circulating that President Biden plans to cut American red meat consumption by 90%. Americans eat on average around 40 pounds of red meat a year, so a 90% reduction would limit that to 4 pounds annually, or approximately 1 hamburger a month. This claim has a number of conservative commentators clutching their pearls, defending red meat, and comically boasting about who eats more beef. Seriously, Don Jr. tweeted out that he probably eats said 4 pounds of red meat a day. I know he’s exaggerating for effect, but still.

However, as you’ve probably guessed, this “story” is completely made up. There is no section of Biden’s climate plan that calls for a reduction in red meat, let alone some stringent requirement that limits Americans to 4 pounds of it. Right wing media have spent hours and hours now circulating this lie and more credible news outlets have been forced to waste time refuting it. So, the question is: how did we get here?

Let’s start at the beginning. In January of 2020, researchers from Tulane and the University of Michigan published a study that examined various hypothetical scenarios that would impact our efforts to cut carbon emissions. One of those hypotheticals asked, what would happen if Americans cut their beef consumption by 90%. The answer is that cutting this much beef out of our diets would have substantial benefits and would lead to appreciable decreases in carbon emissions.

This study has nothing to do with the Biden Administration and was in fact published before he even took office. However, earlier this week the Daily Mail, which is a British tabloid on par with the National Enquirer and barely more serious that the Onion, published an editorial linking the study with Biden’s plan. I read the article and it’s filled with nonsense and outright lies, including this one. It’s written in such a way as to get around libel laws, but just barely.

That being said, this article was picked up immediately by Fox News and Fox Business. Both networks started repeating the claims ad nauseum for days afterward and this idea has been circulating among other right wing media outlets.

If they haven’t already, I guarantee that Republican politicians will repeat this claim on the floors of Congress.

This is how misinformation spreads.

We really don’t have time to be dealing with this nonsense. Fox is extraordinarily influential and what they do impacts our dialogue. It should come as no surprise then that public discussions of climate change seem to be going nowhere. When the most influential cable news network is willfully spreading lies about the topic, we can’t expect their viewers to take the issue seriously.

Timelines: 2030? 2050?

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

A number of climate activists have zeroed in on two dates: 2030 and 2050. There are some good reasons for this, namely that certain reports use these two dates as benchmarks for preventing the worst of climate change. As I may have said before, there’s no stopping climate change, only containing it.

Why these two dates? Well, 2030 was chosen by the IPCC as a good intermediate date where we could measure our success, but the number itself is totally arbitrary. The scientists chose it because it’s a round number between now and the middle of the century.

The same is true, interestingly enough, for 2050. Basically, we need to be carbon negative at some point. We’ve already emitted more carbon into the atmosphere than is desirable, so eventually we need to start withdrawing more than we’re emitting. When the scientists and economists who study climate change were designing policy, they determined that 2050 was a realistic target for hitting carbon neutrality. If we want to get to carbon neutral before we burn through our carbon budget, 2050 is possibly a realistic goal.

You may be asking, what exactly do I mean by “carbon budget”? Well, it’s pretty simple. The mean global temperature is rising. It’s been rising for decades, and we’ve determined that we’d like to keep that temperature increase below 1.5° C. Now, it takes a certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere to increase the global temperature by that much. We’ve already emitted the majority of that carbon, but we have not emitted all of it. The difference, i.e. the amount of carbon we can still safely emit AND hit our target, is called our “carbon budget”.

Imagine you’ve been given $10,000 to travel. The more frugal you are, the longer your vacation, it’s the exact same concept. Right now we’re staying at the Ritz-Carlton and drinking Dom Perignon, it’s fun, but we’re burning through our cash. Except this “vacation” is our entire civilization.

If we dramatically cut our carbon emissions in the next decade, we would give ourselves more time to reach carbon neutrality. If we increase our emissions, then we shorten our timeframe and reduce our margin of error.

So, if you think 2050 is a long time from now, then remember, we can move that date forward or backward. The more we cut our emissions in the short term, the longer we have to deal with the problem. The more we emit in the short term, the harder the problem gets.

Instead of focusing on 2030 or 2050, we should focus on today. A carbon atom saved today is worth more than a carbon atom saved in 10 years.

What Does Success Look Like?

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

(Originally Published as a “Climate Friday” on Facebook)

The way we define success is pretty important, and for me there are a few guiding principles that help me understand where we are and where I hope we end up. I would be curious if anyone has their own set of principles that they’d like to share.

ENERGY IS CLEAN, ABUNDANT, AND VERY CHEAP. There are almost a billion people who do not have reliable access to electricity. There are two billion people who don’t have reliable access to clean water. The prices they pay for what little they get are astronomical. We want to waste as little as possible, but we want everyone to have access to modern technology. We just need to do this in a way that doesn’t destroy our atmosphere. Without clean, abundant, and cheap energy, then this problem becomes impossible to fix.

WE STOP THE SIXTH EXTINCTION. We are currently causing the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history, but there is still time to turn things around. We must restore and protect large quantities of land and ocean. Restoration ecology, particularly if it includes indigenous people and protects their rights and traditions, is a key component to a sustainable world. Without thriving ecosystems and wildlife populations, we cannot be considered sustainable.

ECONOMIC GROWTH IS DECOUPLED FROM RESOURCE CONSUMPTION. We must decouple economic growth, which is generally a positive thing, from the growth in resource consumption. Global poverty is still a huge problem, and even if we manage to address inequality, we will likely need more economic growth. However, our economy is already using too many resources, so we must get more efficient and more creative.

PROSPERTY, GOOD GOVERNANCE, AND STABILITY BECOME THE NORM. To protect the environment and create a sustainable world, we need governments that are stable, competent, and generally ethical, and we need citizens that are prosperous, educated, and happy.

These four principles speak to the interconnected and interdependent challenges that we are facing. Each of these represents an enormous challenge that I doubt will be solved in my lifetime, but we must work not for our own lifespans, but for the lifespans of those who will come next. Progress is progress, and though we may never reach our final goals, we can move towards them and make a great deal of good.

My First Book Recommendations

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

I love reading lists. I love the connective tissue between the titles, and the way a reading list builds on itself. Outside of a formal education setting, a reading list by a qualified recommender is one of the best ways to educate yourself on a topic.

The five titles were influential in my journey to understand and visualize climate change. You may be surprised, since only two of them are explicitly about climate, while the others are about connected subjects. One of them is a novel, while the other four are non-fiction. I don’t think it is necessary to read them in any order, and you may have already read some of them. I offer them here as a suggestion, and hope they can enrich your understand of climate and the challenges we face, as well as how we can adapt.

1. Creating Climate Wealth by Jigar Shah

If I can recommend one book about climate, it’s this one. Shah is one of my personal heroes, he currently runs the lending program at the Department of Energy, and after reading this book I think you will understand why. The takeaway is that climate change is an enormous opportunity to create wealth, and to dramatically improve our society in ways we don’t really understand yet. By approaching it like an opportunity rather than a threat, we change the psychology of the issue. We can use climate investment to build wealth, bring people out of poverty, and raise the global standard of living.

2. Animal ,Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver

Kingsolver is a novelist by trade, but this is a memoir. She and her family determined to grow their own food for an entire year, and she presents a funny, poignant and often difficult look at the challenges of doing so. This book is a must read for anyone who thinks they’re going to become more self-sufficient, particularly if they plan to grow their own food. As the climate becomes less stable, food resources may become more difficult, especially those that require specific climatic conditions to grow (like wine). Anyone with a plot of land may feel compelled to supplement their grocery budget with some home grown produce (or even meat, as Kingsolver did), I suggest they read this book before they do so.

3. The Grid by Gretchen Bakke

Bakke takes one of the driest and probably least sexy subjects around and makes it readable. This book is not exactly reassuring, and will have many readers wondering how they can secure their own access to electricity. As we’ve seen this year, extreme weather wrecks havoc on the grid, and long-term power outages will become more common. We will need heavy investment in the grid if we’re going to provide reliable acess

4. The Soil Will Save Us by Kristin Ohlson

This book really opened my eyes when I read it. Like most people these days, I was not very familiar with soil carbon. It turns out the precious topsoil that we’ve been losing at an alarming rate is also a major carbon sink. By implementing soil-saving, carbon-building practices, farmers can offset a significant amount of our carbon emissions. This would also have multiple benefits beyond reducing atmospheric carbon. If you want to understand the carbon cycle and the role that agriculture plays in climate stability, I’d highly recommend this book.

5. The Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler

This excellent novel by one of the best science fiction authors ever is far more complex than a typical post-apocalyptic story. What makes it interesting for us is that the apocalypse is not some surprise cataclysm like an alien invasion or a sudden catastrophe, the apocalypse is climate change. Butler presents a very realistic and vivid picture of what could very well happen in certain communities as the planet warms and the climate disabilizes. Issues of race, inequality, violence, and government neglect are presented in naked and at times gut-wrenching fashion. This book is well worth a read under its own merits, but for anyone who has trouble imagining what life might be like in a few decades, this work is a good place to start.

Politicians and the Lies They Tell

~ climate2021steve ~ Leave a comment

(Originally published as a Climate Friday on Facebook)

There is a lot of misinformation about what’s going on with the Texas power grid. Let’s be clear, the main issue with the power grid is that it wasn’t “weatherized” to handle extreme cold weather. This is a system-wide problem. Why this is the case is a little complicated, but I want to be clear about something: people are lying about this for their political benefit.

Some dishonest right-wing politicians like Dan Crenshaw and Greg Abbott are trying to blame wind power for the whole situation, that’s utter nonsense.

It’s true that the wind turbines in Texas haven’t been weatherized to withstand cold weather (they work perfectly well in Scotland and Greenland when properly weatherized), but neither have any of the other resources. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas are all struggling to produce power right now, but natural gas is having the hardest time of all. Anyone who tries to tell you that wind or renewables are the primary culprit is either lying to you or, pardon the expression, completely full of shit.

The situation right now is what happens when a completely unexpected extreme weather event collides with infrastructure that wasn’t built to handle it.

If you want to know why I’m so concerned about climate change and why I feel so strongly that this is important, just look at the very real human suffering that’s happening right now. And this isn’t a Texas problem, it’s an everywhere problem. Phoenix can handle 110 degrees, Boston can’t. Florida can handle big hurricanes, New York can’t.

We need to be honest about this issue and push back against anyone who tries to confuse the situation. That starts with operating within the realm of reality and not letting people get away with lying for political benefit.