Climate experts explain what’s at stake
“We are all in this together. CO2 travels the globe – it doesn’t matter where it is emitted. We can no longer take refuge in the fact that what we emit stays in our own region.”
- Steve Colt, Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Development
• Economic impacts, political solutions and human adaptation discussed at conference
By Naomi Klouda
Homer Tribune
HOMER TRIBUNE/Naomi Klouda - Social Economist Steve Colt (TOP) and Marine Conservation Coordinator Alan Parks talked about the costs and history of climate change Thursday at a conference at the Alaska Islands and Oceans Visitors Center Thursday.
According to estimates quoted by Institute of Social and Economic social-economist Steve Colt, some $3-$12 trillion dollars will be lost per year over the next 20 years because of climate change,
So, how do social scientists begin to evaluate lost fisheries attributed to climate change, the cost of public infrastructure when roads and buildings lose ground to erosion, or the bio-physics involving the release of methane frozen thousands of years beneath the Arctic ice?
These were some issues raised by Colt, and others, at the Climate Change Adaptation Conference on Thursday at Islands and Ocean Visitors Center. The event, sponsored by Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, the Alaska Marine Conservation Council and Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy through the University of Alaska Fairbanks, brought a host of experts together to talk about matters now in the forefront as the disciplines begin to inventory a changing earth.
Despite unknown risks in the calculated cost of global warming, social economists are finding there are facts to guide. Colt gave these five:
• The cost of doing nothing is not zero.
• Society must adapt together. “Every place for itself is not a defensible strategy,” he said.
• There must be a price placed on greenhouse gases in order to change behavior.
• A clear price is the fastest way to achieve change.
• Municipalities and regional governments play a crucial role.
Colt advocates for “Cap and Trade” as an effective tool to help bring about the change.
“The real question is, how are details of either scheme handled on cap versus trade?” he asked.
Congress is currently discussing the matter as the slow wheels of politics churn toward developing a climate-change solution to the growing problem. Still, there is some good news in the scenario.
“A price on carbon is your friend,” Colt said, noting a chart that shows how — since 1970 — per capita consumption of energy has flattened. This shows how any reduction in energy use shrinks the carbon footprint. Every one gallon of gas releases 10 kilograms of CO2, while 100 gallons release 1 ton of CO2.
It’s all local
Alan Parks, outreach coordinator of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, followed Colt at the conference with a discussion on how “All Politics is Local.”
A trace back on government reaction to climate change from 1979 to 2010 shows a history of reluctance to move on the issue that many scientists warned was an emerging problem, Parks said, presenting a timeline. In 1979, then U.S. President Jimmy Carter was concerned enough about energy issues that he installed solar panels on the White House.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan took them down, and proclaimed the issue a non-problem.
In 1991, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that one thing is for certain: “Earth’s climate is changing.” The IPCC issued its first report in 1990.
In 1997, Congress declared it would not address climate change if proposed solutions could hurt the U.S. economy. Senate Resolution 98 passed, contending the U.S. would not sign any international agreement. The bill attracted 64 co-sponsors and passed 95-0.
In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol talks.
In 2007, the IPCC releases its fourth assessment and concluded that humans are the primary cause of climate change. The IPCC recommended that a downward trend in emissions must begin no later than 2015, and must aim for lower emissions than 1990 levels.
In 2009-2010, the U.S. sees two Congressional bills discussing ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
The Waxman-Markey Bill (HR 5424) is in the U.S. House, while the Boxer-Kerry Bill is in the U.S. Senate. The Boxer-Kerry Bill uses HR 5424 as a template, but asks to be more aggressive on reducing emissions by 2020. A third bill is presented by Cantwell-Collins (SB 1733: The CLEAR Act). Unlike the previous two bills which are some 1,000-pages each, this one is 40 pages, and is not a cap and trade bill. Rather it incentivizes emission reduction by offering a carbon dividend.
“My point is that, since 1979, our scientists have been telling us there is climate change, and our policies have been reflecting contrary to what the scientific community is saying,” Parks said.
In 2010, the bills on the table do not follow the IPCC recommendations to reduce levels back to 1990 emissions of greenhouse gases. Instead, the bills ask for 2005 GHG emissions, Parks noted. That’s an addition of 15 years in GHG and corresponding CO2 levels.
Human adaptation
Ian Dutton, president of the Alaska SeaLife Center at Seward, based many of his remarks on 25 years experience in marine science and conservation. He joined the Center last fall, arriving from The Nature Conservancy where he served as deputy managing director for the Asia-Pacific region and led science and conservation programs in nine countries.
As a researcher, Dutton helped shape coastal and marine development across Asia and the Pacific with a lot of those decisions based on climate change. He established Indonesia’s first national coastal management act, led international coastal management programs for the University of Rhode Island and conducted Australia’s national scientific oil spill response training.
Given the challenges presented by climate change, Dutton believes the “longer we delay, the more we pay,” in the race to cut green house gases emissions.
“Humans must now adapt faster than ever before,” he said. As a scientist on the forefront to climate change issues, his questions dealt with why it has taken so long to move forward on policy changes. And how can humans leverage to make better adaptation decisions? Dutton said, for one, they need to stop reinventing the wheel — or guide for actions that have been in use for the past few decades as much of the rest of the world grappled with issues related to a changing planet.
The urgency is apparent in Indonesia, where coral bleaching caused by a warming ocean has led to environmental problems. Haiti’s devastating death toll after an earthquake in early January is attributed in part to foundation issues set off by global warming, he said.
(Editor’s Note: Dutton clarified that he was not speaking directly about Haiti, but of the overall region being impacted by “bleaching events on coral” making communities more vulnerable to tsunami damage.)
“In reality, if systems were in place, the damage would not have been so great,” Dutton said.
Alaska needs a long-term plan as a state positioned on “ground zero” of immediate climate changes, he said. The models for these plans are well-established and readily available, advising governments to build an understanding, share knowledge, plan for smart growth and a host of other measures.
Posted by Newsroom on Feb 24th, 2010 and filed under Headline News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
10 Responses for “Climate experts explain what’s at stake”
Comments are closed
And did these fine gentlemen explain how the earth has gone thru 5-7 previous ice ages which were, by the way, the result of high CO2 emissions. Volcanoes, oceans and other elements emit the vast majority of CO2; far more than us humans. Look, everything must constantly evolve and change….including the earth. Believe it or not, life will go on without us after we leave our worldly confines of this earth and future generations will still adapt to economic and environmental conditions. Unfortunately, it appears to me that these “speakers” are definitely not scientist in any stretch of definition because they are offering their facts to support their respective deep and underlying political view. Therein lies the problem.
I knew someone would try to connect global warming with Hati’s earthquake. That one fallacy makes this whole article suspect.
Wes – I was misquoted – my comments were in relation to the 2004 Asian tsunami in which the damage to coastal communities was exacerbated by climate change – reefs that protected those communities in Sumatra, Thailand and Sri Lanka had been weakend by bleaching events making communities more vulnerable to tsunami damage.
Cap and trade is a scam. It is not working in the eu and it won’t work here. The power companies will simply pass the cost on the the starving masses. Meanwhile people that created the companies that sell “air”- {nothing] – carbon credits like al gore will make money for nothing . co2 gas is green, plants take it in and release o2 and grow faster when there is more of it.
As one of the presenters at the climate workshop last week I can ensure you that at no time did I or any one else involved in the workshop proclaim or characterize myself as a scientist.
I am the outreach coordinator for Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC).
A position I have held for over ten years. My work with AMCC has been centered on promoting sustainable fishery management in state and federal waters with a goal of supporting the working waterfront for local people.
AMCC’s work regarding global climate change (GCC) has been motivated by the scientific understanding of the impacts of GCC to the way of life and economy of fishing families and coastal communities that depend on a healthy ocean.
Specifically our concerns are with ocean acidification in Alaska waters, which is measured with the highest degree of scientific certainty.
Ocean acidification was the topic of the presentation at the workshop by chemical oceanographer and University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences professor Dr. Jeremy Mathis.
My presentation at the workshop was an overview of the several bills currently being considered in congress regarding energy security, jobs, the economy, carbon offsets and carbon pricing.
I think the Tribune did a fine job at reporting the event but from my recollection of Steve Colt’s presentation, is that he did not state his support for a “Cap & Trade” scheme but I will let him clarify his position.
The title of my talk was a direct quote from Tip O’Neil “All Politics is Local” and it is in that vane that I welcome and encourage an informal gathering with you Dawg, Wes, Buck or anyone else regarding these issues. And actually I believe Dr. Mathis would be willing (within scheduling constraints) to meet with you as well or maybe you know of a scientist that would be willing to make a presentation to the community regarding the geological history of CO2 and the impacts from natural souses of CO2 emissions like volcanoes.
Please let me know how I can help
I can be reached at 235-3826
Sorry to learn that the solar panels on the white house were taken down, so I suppose then for those decades since then, thats more tax payer $ spent on power than if they were left up?
I’ve been using wind and sun for power for over 30 years.
I do like to listen to both sides of this issue, equally, but have a hard time with either side when they seem only to want to point out how the other side is a bunch of idiots…or out to destroy the economy etc.
I also dont like being labeled as some kind of greeny extremest.
I make my own power from the wind and sun for the same reason I garden, the same reason I fish,.. I happen to just LIKE to take care of MYSELF.
So when someone comes and tells me “Way to stick it to the man”, nope sorry wrong guy!
No less, if someone were to get a grid tie system and sell power back to the power companies, YES they should be able to make a profit off of doing so! It is ‘their’ power lines your using, their workmen out there on the line and they need to have it shut off on your end if a line goes down, so they dont get zapped for doing their jobs. So nope wrong guy, they SHOULD pay for what we sell back to them, at LESS cost than if you buy it from them, this is also how we the people and the power companies can work “together” and both gain.
I felt it wrong, when protesting nuclear power plant construction and coal/electrical plants… to then go home and turn on the power they produced, basically “paying them” to do that.
That made it MY fault not theirs for me to point the finger at OTHERS and then demand change.
So, being an American in the habit of ‘doing it myself’ I changed.
And the $ not spent paying them to put toxins like mercury into the air, that then washed out onto farms, lakes, rivers and our oceans so I can no longer eat fish that dont have mercury, instead of MY paying them to do that, I spend that money -instead-, in my local community.
Instead of supporting multi-trillion dollar industries (like they need more of my money?) I spent it on my neighbors, buying as local made or produced goods as I can find.
I have something then to show for those decades I did not buy that kind of power, and so does my community in terms of JOBS.
Now, some call those who want change all kinds of things, and attack the reasons for wanting it.
Me personally I’d rather change myself, then say others should…..
And I do read those who fight change, looking for their reasons in case I’m doing something wrong… in not putting as much CO2 in the air, or mercury in my fish, or keeping what I bring into the area, in the area by supporting local businesses, rather than mega corporations, who for all I know dont even live here anyway.
I dont fish for a living, but want to feel some kind of security that this industry will remain viable for the next generations. And if doing things the same way, that has led to depleted fisheries like those of the lower 48 states, was a good idea? Then they would still have active viable clean fishing down there.
Keep doing things the same way, progress, and being world leaders, does not add up. How can we be world leaders, when it comes to a change that all prosper more in (other than those who want to take all our resources NOW and leave nothing for our children), and we fight change…
Fighting change and being leaders, sound more like opposite ideas.
I want a strong country, a strong economy, clean air, clean fish, and waiting for the world to change, when so many seem to fight it….
Well, I had enough of that kind of thinking decades ago,
so in true American fashion (maybe a bit old fashion).
I did it (and am still doing it) myself.
I’m not telling others to change, I dont like the idea of living in a dictatorship so I wont act like one.
But I have more $ in my pocket and so does my community, by not poisoning the air… so, I have a hard time understanding those who say this is a bad idea, or how its all about some political objective, when to me its more about $ in my pocket, and wanting to improve my life, way of life, and help my local economy all at the same time.
.
For those who want some of the science… I’ve placed some of what Al Gore used on a page of one of my sites, those who retrieved the ice core samples used, where a group who included friend and neighboring land owner, so, I had these results years before Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth.
worldwidewebwizard.com/co2.xhtml
I’ve added a little something near the bottom of the page for more information.
I’ve been studying climatology, independently, for 30+ years.
And I’m sorry but I just have to say this….
During those cold winter blizzards when the wind is just a howling?
I disconnect the wind generators from the batteries, and plug them directly into electric heaters….
And some place in the back of my mind, cant help but see a smile on the faces of my cave man ancestors…
For turning a blizzard, directly into heat…
Not THAT, to me, is PROGRESS!
A bit of a clarification; I agree with you “tree” fully on the saving $$$ part of the whole alt energy thing and that the wind and such are huge sources of energy. The tecnolegy has a ways to go in eficiency and cost. I would like a 25kwatt wind turbine for under 5 grand that also lasts 20 years or more. Also able to harness the extra power of strong gusts. However the true american buisiness model should be alowed, even encouraged [grants tax breaks etc.]. Cap n trade is not this. The good blend of free enterprise, capitalisim etc. works well when it is alowed to.Why reward someone that puts out an over priced inefichient product with governtment mandates. Useing “clean” or “green” energy sources are going to have to pass the economic tests of time no matter how much they are subsidized throught mandated taxes -like cap and trade. Hydrogen is the ultimate “battery” for storing the power of wind and sun; but right now way too exspensive even to buy fuel cells let alone split water. For now those that can afford the wind mills, solar panels and such ; go fo it ,more power to you [pun intended]. Some of us will make our own. And the wage earners just trying to survive the outrageous rents, fuel, and food costs of Homer will focus on what they have too: surviveal. Just remember carbon MOn-oxide is poision to us and critters ; carbon Di-oxide is great for plant growth.
I’m with you Buck on the cap and trade issue. Though I do think this would be less of an option if there was more competition, so consumers could choose and have the means (know what factories, power plants etc put out) to know of the impact they are having, would likely create more of a financial motive for companies regarding competition and likely have a greater impact than cap and trade.
When I lived in downtown Homer for a few years I had one my wind generators up and solar panels on the south side of the house, but also used (no grid tie system) HEA power.
Some of the problems with “in town” wind generators seem to stem from some of the noise made by one of the leading small wind turbine companies (it gets annoying after a while), but this is not the case with ALL small wind turbines (p.s. in 30+ years I’ve also never once had a bird killed, and I do check for this even still after all this time without one).
I’m on real low income, forced to relocate out of town, the place I’m at has no grid power available (so this message is wind/solar powered) at almost 3 years at this location, I have a gas backup generator but have not used it in over a year. I dont have a large wind generator, but small ones, and keep adding on to them.
Many of the parts used to make them, come from the dump, I also have 3 of the type found on the towers on the spit, that do make noise, or at least did, until I made some alterations to them.
Even without more advances in wind power, the cost is around $1 a watt vs around $10 a watt for solar if you buy rather than build yourself.
But with both wind and solar, you dont have to wait to cover all your power needs all at once, but can start small, and keep adding on as you go (using the $ you’ve saved?).But while I did not want to distract from the issue of CO2, and global warming/climate change, I wanted to point out there are other aspects also involved like mercury and economics, because while the science seems to be in dispute (thus warranting independent reviews of the data, which I think is a wise thing to do), that seems to have put a bit of a road block on moving forward with alternative energy instillation, there are plenty of other good reasons for making changes in this direction besides those of the cost of global warming.
Yet one item I feel should be examined, in the ice core samples compared to current levels of CO2, the levels (if accurate to any degree) go off the charts of all prior data…. which I would find understandably alarming, and confusing, since there are no models or examples for science to use as to what changes we can expect from these levels of CO2.
Personally, I would like to see something like Homer getting so ahead of things with green energy, that tourists would come to the town, just for that reason. Not hard to imagine something like our schools, having a contest for the students to build the quietest, most Alaskan style wind generators (aesthetics are an important item here due to the natural attention getter wind generators generate also, so something that improves the appearance, also improves the appearance of the town itself as a whole).
In this way too, we would be teaching our children technologies they will be having to use, in their futures, especially if we deplete all of our easily reachable oil and coal resources. Putting them, ahead of the curve rather than behind it.
The winner of such contest, could have theirs used as the model for mounting on the school, thus too bringing its operation costs down.
While true that if you double the diameter of the turbine blades you multiply by 4 the power output, larger turbines tend to have a bad history of bird kills, and the larger your blade diameter also the greater damages can result from vibrations if the blades go out of balance.Besides the greater costs to get into wind power thus greater delays in doing so.
So, while the impact of climate change and the costs to us is an issue well worth looking at, the solutions we can implement, do far more than just impact CO2 (and other) emissions.
With our winds, and the 2nd highest tide differential in the world right here before us, to not be developing these seems almost as much a crime as wasting meat by killing sheep just for the horns.
Rather than be behind the times, I’d rather we were ahead of them, and the more of us that use these renewable abundant resources, including the education of our youths, the more we increase the odds, one of them will be the ones who makes these advances your referring to.
Yet another item on the plate Alaska will soon be dealing with, that China is saying it intends to stop export of rare earth magnets (used in wind generators) but only selling them in the finished products, and Alaska has recently found deposits of some of these rare earth elements!
There is so much, right here, that can put our area and our state so far ahead as leaders, at the benefit of not just us as residents and businesses, but HEA as well, that to drag our feet on this one when being leaders in this new frontier is right at our fingertips, that the longer we drag our feet, the more we (and our children) will become behind, rather than take this opportunity, to be leaders.
The choice is ours. but the longer we wait, the more we loose, of this opportunity to be leaders, and the more government will have to step in to get us to be followers rather than totally left behind.
Those who get on this first, will be the ones who prosper the most.
And to late, will mean spending so much on energy, we wont be able to afford the alternatives, we will be to broke, not just as individuals and businesses, but also a community, and as a country.
.
.
Whether you think humans have caused climate change or not, it seems to me we should not take a chance on it. If we have not caused it then we just have cleaned up the air a bit and if we have caused then we might just save ourselves.
So what is the argument about? We all know that the economy will not suffer if we simple change where we get or energy from. A job is a job, whether its in the oil fields, the electric company or putting up solar and wind turbines. So why are we willing to risk our enviroment and possibly our childrens health when we could be doing something good for all of us no matter how it turns out in the end>