Earth Hour 2008: Turn off the lights for one hour on 29 March

Earth Hour 2008

On 31 March last year, the city of Sydney, Australia, turned off its lights for one hour. Coordinated by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) Australia, “Earth Hour” drew participation from individuals, businesses, and major landmarks such as the Sydney Opera House. The goal of the event was to raise awareness of climate change and demonstrate simple ways to reduce energy usage.

This year, WWF is making it a planet-wide campaign. Major cities such as San Fransisco, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, Toronto, Tel Aviv, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Canberra, Brisbane, and Christchurch are joining Sydney this year in darkening non-essential lights. And you can join in, too!

Earth Hour’s web site has suggestions on how to get involved. First, turn off your lights from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. (local time) on 29 March. Also, spread the word! Involve your friends and family. Bloggers, do what you do best. You can also encourage local businesses to take part, and even work to involve your town or city.

If you are interested, please sign up and pledge your support!

More on the Environmental Costs of Eating Meat

Livestock’s high energy costs
See full-sized image or accompanying article. Credit: Bill Marsh/New York Times.

An article in the New York Times last week further explores the costs that consuming animals has on the environment. (Please see also my previous post, “Vegetarianism vs. Meat-Eating and Global Warming”.)

Here’s a short excerpt:

…But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation. To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. …

The only way we can make environmentally friendly changes is to be informed of the impacts those choices will have. This thought-provoking article helps to show just how our food choices can drain resources and contribute to pollution in varying amounts.

So if you’re thinking about purchasing a more fuel-efficient car or trying to think of what else you could do to help the planet, cutting back on meat is another option. In addition to the obvious health benefits and improvements in animal welfare, you can now add conservation of water, ameliorating climate change, and numerous other factors to reasons to reduce your consumption of meat.

(Thanks to my sister for sharing this article with me.)

Google to Invest Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Alternative Energy

From Reuters:

Google Inc is prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in big commercial alternative-energy projects that traditionally have had trouble getting financing, the executive in charge of its green-energy push said on Wednesday.

The Internet search giant, which has said it will invest in researching green technologies and renewable-energy companies, is eager to help promising technologies amass scale to help drive the cost of alternative energy below the cost of coal.

(continued)

It’s nice to see private groups getting involved like this.

Minnesota Joins Sixteen States to Sue the EPA

I was pleased to read Minnesota Public Radio’s report that Minnesota will join the sixteen-state coalition suing the Environmental Protection Agency.

Background: Despite its role to protect the environment, the Environmental Protection Agency had previously refused to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, stating among other reasons that they did not have the authority. (See my previous post.) Twelve states and thirteen environmental groups sued, and the Supreme Court ruled that yes, the states had the right to sue the EPA; yes, the EPA does have the authority to regulate these emission; and perhaps the EPA can decide not to regulate them, but must reconsider. Meanwhile, California had requested a waiver to set more strict tailpipe emissions standards than those of the federal government. In December 2007, the EPA denied this request. This has prompted the now seventeen states suing the EPA.

It is incredible that the EPA has resisted taking action and now is actively impeding attempts to combat climate change. As Ansel Adams said, “It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment” (attributed). But at least our state governments are taking action, even as the Bush administration does its best to stymie progress.

How to Reuse or Recycle Things You Didn’t Know You Could

The Environmental News Network has a nice article on what you can do with several types of old items — how you can give them so others can reuse or recycle them.  For instance:

  1. Appliances: Goodwill accepts working appliances, www.goodwill.org, or you can contact the Steel Recycling Institute to recycle them. 800/YES-1-CAN, www.recycle-steel.org.

(more)

Some are rather cumbersome, but several would actually not be too inconvenient. Certainly reducing use and consumption would be best, but at least this way you can still help decrease waste and the production of new products.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

graphic showing one person with filled shopping cart and another with filled garbage can
See The Story of Stuff at http://www.storyofstuff.com/.

A friend of mine sent me a link to The Story of Stuff, a twenty-minute animation/video about our chain of consumption and the many negative impacts it has. It’s certainly thought-provoking, and since one of the main purposes of this blog is to provoke thought, I thought I’d share it here. While it is simplified, and may be a bit exaggerated in places, I like it because it does a good job tying things into a big picture—and I like big pictures. We have a tendency to focus on one area at a time: energy independence, protection of natural resources, climate change, industrial waste, and so on, but they are all aspects of a central issue, and that’s that we are living an unsustainable lifestyle, and that we need to change our outlook, not just isolated habits.

Amy Tiemann wrote about the video in CNET’s News Blog; below is an excerpt:

The Story of Stuff illustrates the consumption chain and aims to reframe our conversation from unlimited production and consumption to sustainability and equity. The video is quite engaging, and I was impressed by its simplicity and effectiveness. No flashy graphics or sensational techniques, just simple line animation accompanying a 20-minute video lecture by sustainability expert Annie Leonard.

There are several ways to watch it. I suggest watching it in Flash format. (There are links to the individual sections so you don’t have to watch it all at once, or you can go back and forth.) You can also download a 50-MB Quicktime movie. Finally, I’ve included YouTube clips for each chapter below; this is probably the simplest way and you can watch it in pieces.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Extraction

Chapter 3: Production

Chapter 4: Distribution

Chapter 5: Consumption

Chapter 6: Disposal

Chapter 7: Another Way

For more information about the information raised in the video, you can take a look at the resources page. If you’re motivated to action, there is a list of ten little and big things you can do. If you want to go further, there are numerous organizations working to tackle the various facets of this problem.

Australia to Ratify Kyoto Protocol; United States Remains Apart

Hours after taking office, Australia’s new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, initiated the process of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases to help fight climate change. (See, for instance, the Sydney Morning Herald or the BBC). 174 countries have ratified the agreement; the United States is notably absent, especially now that Australia is joining their ranks.

Map of countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol
Map of countries and their position towards the Kyoto Protocol. Green countries have signed and ratified the treaty; yellow countries have signed but not yet ratified it. Red countries have signed but have no intention of ratifying. Gray countries have not taken a position. See full-sized version. Source: Wikipedia.

Just Who Takes Global Warming Seriously, Anyway?

From time to time, a politician or scientist makes the news for disputing some of the facts about human-induced climate change (global warming). These remarks can often be exaggerated or taken out of context, as in the recent example of climate scientist John Christy (who apparently agrees that humans are causing global warming but takes exception to the “catastrophism” that often accompanies climate change discussions). I thought it would be useful to collect positions from various scientific organizations. This list focuses  on United States institutions, since that is where I live and also because there seems to be more confusion here than in much of the world.

The clear authority, the Nobel Peace Prize–winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988, the IPCC’s reports are considered authoritative by governments and scientists worldwide. I’d actually like to cover this report in more detail in a future post, but below is abstracted from the Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF):

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases…Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid–20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)…Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems…

The joint national science academies of the G8+5 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) published a combined statement. Backed also by the Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Académie des Sciences (France), Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Academy of Science of South Africa (South Africa), Chinese Academy of Sciences (China), Indian National Science Academy (India), Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico), and the Royal Society (United Kingdom), the statement (PDF) included the following:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the organization that publishes the prestigious journal Science, takes the following position (PDF):

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The United States National Research Council states:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.

The American Meterological Society states:

…Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency states:

According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the 12 warmest years on record (since 1850), with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level. If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth’s surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet’s climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be.

The American Geophysical Union states:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth’s history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The American Astronomical Society agrees with the American Geophysical Union, saying:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) notes that human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is significantly contributing to the warming of the global climate. The climate system is complex, however, making it difficult to predict detailed outcomes of human-induced change: there is as yet no definitive theory for translating greenhouse gas emissions into forecasts of regional weather, hydrology, or response of the biosphere. As the AGU points out, our ability to predict global climate change, and to forecast its regional impacts, depends directly on improved models and observations.

The American Astronomical Society (AAS) joins the AGU in calling for peer-reviewed climate research to inform climate-related policy decisions, and, as well, to provide a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global change and to help communities adapt and become resilient to extreme climatic events.

In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

The American Institute of Physics also endorses the American Geophysical Union’s position, saying:

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

The Geological Society of America states [link appears to be broken]:

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.

The American Chemical Society states (PDF):

Accumulating evidence clearly shows that our environment and the global climate system are changing. Global average temperatures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, sea levels, and extreme weather events are on the rise. In order to place these changes in the context of environmental policy, it is necessary to recognize that the climate is a dynamic system. The geochemical record demonstrates that large, and sometimes rapid, climate changes have occurred in the past without the influences of modern development. There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century.

And not a scientific society, but relevant nonetheless, the Norwegian Nobel Committee issued the following statement as part of its Nobel Peace Prize announcement:

Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

I could not find any major scientific organization disagreeing with the scientific view as expressed by the IPCC. The American Association of State Climatologists is noncommittal (PDF).

World leaders are taking an active role. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been an active proponent of action. See, for example, his recent briefing to the General Assembly:

We look to Governments to agree on a road map for negotiations that will ensure a new climate change agreement by 2009. This date is important not only to ensure continuity after 2012, when the existing regime expires — but equally, to address the desperate urgency of the situation itself, as underscored by the IPCC…

And U.S. President George Bush has emphasized the importance of fighting climate change, though progress has been underwhelming.

Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world’s response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations.

Finally, the American public agrees that global warming is a major problem (see my previous post, as well). A recent BBC poll (PDF) states:

…Seven in 10 Americans (71%) say that human activity is “a significant cause of climate change.” By a margin of 59 percent to 33 percent, Americans say it is necessary to take “major steps starting very soon” rather than “modest steps over the coming years.” Only 6 percent say “it is not necessary to take any steps.”…

And a LiveScience article summarized several recent polls:

Nearly three-quarters of Americans are willing to pay more taxes to support local government efforts aimed at mitigating global warming…Americans were willing to pay more money in property taxes, home costs and utility fees to support initiatives that would encourage people to use less energy and get that energy from alternative sources…concern for the environment is growing among Americans and bolder action is desired…Americans are pessimistic about the current state of the environment and disapprove of how the government has been handling environmental issues…a majority of Americans believe that society must take action to reduce the effects of global warming, partly by enacting a new national treaty that would require much more drastic reductions in carbon dioxide than those required by the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States never ratified)…

“Nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years—a 20 percentage-point increase since 2004. These results indicate a sea change in public opinion,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale Project on Climate Change, in response to the findings of the earlier poll.

The science has been well-established. The urgency has been well-established. The time for serious action is long overdue.

Midwestern States Agree to Create Carbon Cap-And-Trade Market

From the excellent Minnesota Public Radio:

…Cap and trade means setting an overall cap or limit on greenhouse gases, and then allowing companies to buy and sell the carbon allowances or credits. Businesses that move quickly to reduce emissions can sell their credits to companies that act more slowly.

The Midwest follows three other regional groups that are working cooperatively to create cap and trade markets. Individual states aren’t big enough to make cap and trade markets work, but regional groupings are.

In Thursday’s agreement, six governors — including Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty and Wisconsin’s Jim Doyle — and the premier of Manitoba, agreed to create this kind of market. Three other states will help design it, but did not commit themselves to take part once it’s set up.… (read entire article)

Cap and trade (also called emissions trading) is one of the most promising and practical steps to help reduce carbon emissions, though it is not without its drawbacks. A carbon tax is another frequently discussed mechanism to help cut back.

I’m proud to see my state taking such a prominent step. The lack of leadership and action at the federal level is obvious, and it is unfortunate that individual states have had to take the initiative. This is the sort of thing the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency should be doing; I believe this inaction shows them to be remiss in their duties. It would be remarkable if, despite the ineffectiveness of the Bush administration, the fifty U.S. states could band together to set up their own cap-and-trade market or other effective measure.

Most Environmentally Friendly States

There was an interesting article in Forbes a few weeks ago. They ranked the fifty states of the U.S. by environmental policy—my state, Minnesota, came in at number 15 on the list. They compiled the rankings by examining the states’ carbon footprints, air quality, water quality, hazardous waste management, policy initiatives, and energy consumption:

When you think “green,” you think New Jersey, right? OK, maybe not. But perhaps you should.

The Garden State ranked seventh in our first-ever list of America’s Greenest States, a surprise winner amid places synonymous with environmentalism like Vermont, Oregon and Washington. More startling: The congested East Coast is a lot more environmentally friendly than you thought… (continued)

See also the complete rankings. For the top fifteen and bottom five states, you can read a description about how the state achieved the ranking.