[TheClimate.Vote] March 11, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*March 11, 2020*/

[an ignored risk]
*Climate emergency: global action is 'way off track' says UN head*
Deadly heatwaves, floods and rising hunger far greater threat to world 
than coronavirus, scientists say
The world is "way off track" in dealing with the climate emergency and 
time is fast running out, the UN secretary general has said.

António Guterres sounded the alarm at the launch of the UN's assessment 
of the global climate in 2019. The report concludes it was a 
record-breaking year for heat, and there was rising hunger, displacement 
and loss of life owing to extreme temperatures and floods around the world.

Scientists said the threat was greater than that from the coronavirus, 
and world leaders must not be diverted away from climate action.

The climate assessment is led by the UN's World Meteorological 
Organization (WMO), with input from the UN's agencies for environment, 
food, health, disasters, migration and refugees, as well as scientific 
centres...
- - -
Prof Brian Hoskins, of Imperial College London, said: "The report is a 
catalogue of weather in 2019 made more extreme by climate change, and 
the human misery that went with it. It points to a threat that is 
greater to our species than any known virus – we must not be diverted 
from the urgency of tackling it by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions 
to zero as soon as possible."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/10/climate-emergency-global-action-way-off-track-says-un-head-coronavirus



[politics]
*Joe Biden's Sketchy Climate Record*
His attempt to take undeserved credit for the Paris Agreement only 
scratches the surface of his questionable decisions as vice president.
By KATE ARONOFF
March 10, 2020
- - -
Biden's conspicuous centrism on this subject shows how much liberal 
consensus on fossil fuels has changed in the past few years, 
particularly as climate science has coalesced around the need for 
quicker action. Biden's 2020 platform is certainly more ambitious than 
almost anything that was offered in 2016, even from Sanders. But as a 
2020 candidate, Biden's vision for climate action has been markedly less 
ambitious than his competitors'.

"The plans differ night and day," says Daniel Kammen, a physicist who 
has worked on climate science and energy issues under the last four 
presidents, speaking of Biden's and Sanders's climate platforms. "Biden 
has a rough plan to get to carbon neutral by 2050. Sanders has a plan 
and an investment package to do it by 2030." Last month, Kammen joined 
over 100 other climate scientists in signing on to a letter endorsing 
Sanders's climate plan, after Biden claimed that "not a single 
scientist" supported Sanders's vision. "The Green New Deal you [Sanders] 
are proposing is not only possible, but it must be done if we want to 
save the planet for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future 
generations," the letter states.

"When I signed on that letter, I didn't just do it as Joe Member of the 
Public who feels like we could do it with a Manhattan Project or 
something," Kammen said. He first ran it through the energy model he's 
developed, called Switch, in his Renewable and Appropriate Energy 
Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. And while Sanders 
and Sunrise 2030 targets have come under fire from some energy wonks as 
unrealistic, Kammen said its ambitious goals are entirely feasible. "I'm 
really disappointed that the Biden plan hasn't kept up with the latest 
results out of the U.S. national laboratories and my lab here," he told 
me. "We could go much further than 2050 and do so in a way that 
generates more jobs."...
- - -
Biden's campaign pitch has been premised on a return to Obama-era 
normalcy and a relief from the round-the-clock news cycles of the Trump 
era. But as wildfires in California and the onslaught of bleak studies 
on global warming are making clear, there's no normal to return to where 
the climate is concerned. Even the fossil fuel industry will find 
normalcy difficult going forward; Tellurian Inc., where several Obama 
alums have landed, announced Monday that it will lay off 40 percent of 
employees amid the sharpest crash in oil prices since 1991.

The full impact of unconventional oil and gas development on the climate 
may not have been as well understood during the Obama administration. 
But whether or not an All of the Above energy strategy may have been 
defensible five or 10 years ago, today the need for limits on 
extraction--including natural gas--is plainer than ever. Given the 
fossil fuel industry's expansive lobbying against even modest climate 
measures at every level of government, it seems clear that any plan that 
shifts the country away from fossil fuels in time to avert catastrophe 
will involve a massive fight with one of the most powerful industries 
the world has ever known. Given some of the advisers in his orbit, Biden 
might not be willing to wage that fight as president.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156801/joe-bidens-sketchy-climate-record



[fundamental question]
*What would happen if the world reacted to climate change like it's 
reacting to the coronavirus?*
What would a fast, coordinated, collective response to climate change 
look like?
BY ADELE PETERS - 03-10-20
- -
A growing number of cities and countries have formally declared a 
climate emergency. Some are acting more quickly than others. But the 
overall mobilization looks nothing like the response to the coronavirus. 
In part, that's because climate change still seems like a somewhat 
distant problem, despite the growing number of climate-related disasters 
that happen every year. Another obvious challenge: In the climate 
crisis, powerful companies have a lot to lose if the world acts 
decisively, and with the virus, though many people are losing money, 
there's no similarly massive opposition to trying to address the problem.

"The entrenched power and staying with the status quo is what 
differentiates climate change from this particular crisis," says Boeve. 
"That is something that a lot of people are working on, and that is 
changing. It's becoming more and more hard politically to justify taking 
donations of fossil fuel companies, for example. That is starting to shift."
https://www.fastcompany.com/90473758/what-would-happen-if-the-world-reacted-to-climate-change-like-its-reacting-to-the-coronavirus



[Oregon acts]
*Gov. Kate Brown Orders State Action On Climate Change*
by Dirk VanderHart - March 10, 2020 3:19 p.m.

Oregon Republicans killed cap and trade this year. Now, they'll have to 
contend with cap and reduce.

Closing a loop on a pledge she made last year, Gov. Kate Brown issued an 
executive order Tuesday that aims to sharply curb greenhouse gas 
emissions with a full-court press by government agencies.

The 14-page order comes less than a week after a Republican walkout 
killed Senate Bill 1530, Democrats' signature proposal for a 
cap-and-trade system in Oregon. It contains ambitions that are at once 
equal to and much broader than that bill.
"The executive branch has a responsibility to the electorate, and a 
scientific, economic, and moral imperative to reduce [greenhouse gas] 
emissions," the order says, "and to reduce the worst risks of climate 
change and ocean acidification for future generations."...
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-governor-kate-brown-climate-change-executive-order-cap-and-trade-bill/



[all calamities are connected]
*What would happen if the world reacted to climate change like it's 
reacting to the coronavirus?*
What would a fast, coordinated, collective response to climate change 
look like?
BY ADELE PETERS
The coronavirus has transformed everyday life so significantly that the 
effects are already visible from space. In China, where hundreds of 
millions of people were quarantined to help stop the spread of the 
disease, before-and-after satellite photos show pollution disappearing 
as work came to a standstill. In the U.S., as the number of coronavirus 
cases has grown quickly, companies are asking employees to work from 
home and canceling conferences. Schools are canceling classes. In Italy, 
another massive quarantine is underway. The changes have been sudden, 
driven by widespread recognition that it's a public health 
emergency--and, although the window of opportunity may have already 
closed, a chance to prevent another deadly disease like the flu from 
becoming a permanent, ongoing problem.

The scale of the response raises another question: What would it look 
like if the world responded to the climate crisis with a similar sense 
of urgency? The coronavirus response might not have been as fast as it 
should have been; if the Chinese government had acted faster, the virus 
might not have spread to other countries. And the Chinese government's 
authoritarian tactics shouldn't--and couldn't--be emulated in large 
parts of the rest of the world. But in countries around the world, 
governments and citizens have been quick to change daily habits. The 
same hasn't happened for climate the climate crisis.

"We've seen that governments can act, and people can change their 
behavior, in a very short amount of time," says May Boeve, executive 
director of the climate advocacy group 350.org. "And that's exactly what 
the climate movement has been asking governments and people to do for 
years in the face of a different kind of threat--the climate crisis--and 
we don't see commensurate action. On the one hand, it shows that it's 
possible to do this, and it's possible for this kind of mobilization of 
resources to take place in a short amount of time. In that sense, that's 
encouraging. But we were never in doubt of that aspect." Instead, she 
says, it was a question of whether there was political will for rapid 
change.

There are similarities between the situations--in both cases, the 
scientific community is offering clear warnings about what to do. Both 
involve public health. Climate change is already killing people in 
extreme heat waves and other disasters; it's also worsening food and 
water shortages and it will displace hundreds of millions of people. The 
same pollutants that contribute heavily to climate change also cause air 
pollution that kills millions of people each year. Diseases like malaria 
and dengue fever are likely to spread as mosquitoes move into new 
regions. And as with coronavirus, people living in areas with the fewest 
resources are being impacted most by climate change. "Climate change 
also affects the most vulnerable first and worst," says Boeve. "So we 
see that pattern play out as well, and how this is unfolding and how the 
response is and is not responding to that inequity and impact."

If the world was responding to climate change like it's responding to 
the coronavirus--the level of urgency that the science says is 
necessary--things would look dramatically different. "We would see a lot 
of different things happening all at the same time," says Boeve.

Governments would come up with the funds to build the infrastructure 
needed to fully roll out renewable energy. "It's cheap enough and 
available, but the regulatory systems that would enable people 
everywhere to get clean energy would require massive government 
investment," she says. "We would see these kinds of emergency packages 
that would get people off of the fossil fuel grid and onto a clean grid 
right away."

After wildfires and extreme floods, relief packages would acknowledge 
the role of climate. In cities, development rules would change to 
require low-carbon construction. Farms would shift to regenerative 
agriculture. Just as the airline industry is struggling because of the 
coronavirus, some industries would see real impacts. "We probably 
wouldn't still have an oil and coal and gas industry that was thriving 
in our economy," says Boeve. We would have to find ways to support the 
workers from those industries, as well.

"It's a whole bunch of different things, which could all happen quite 
quickly, because we do actually know what needs to happen," she says. 
"And that's the amazing thing. But the shift in which, and this is 
what's so interesting about what's unfolding with a public health 
emergency is that I think there's a trust in the public health community 
to say, these are the measures we need you to put in place right now. 
They're ready to go and policymakers are acting. And the same thing is 
true with climate change. We've got those policies, they've been 
drafted. They've been waiting to be enacted."

A growing number of cities and countries have formally declared a 
climate emergency. Some are acting more quickly than others. But the 
overall mobilization looks nothing like the response to the coronavirus. 
In part, that's because climate change still seems like a somewhat 
distant problem, despite the growing number of climate-related disasters 
that happen every year. Another obvious challenge: In the climate 
crisis, powerful companies have a lot to lose if the world acts 
decisively, and with the virus, though many people are losing money, 
there's no similarly massive opposition to trying to address the problem.

"The entrenched power and staying with the status quo is what 
differentiates climate change from this particular crisis," says Boeve. 
"That is something that a lot of people are working on, and that is 
changing. It's becoming more and more hard politically to justify taking 
donations of fossil fuel companies, for example. That is starting to shift."
https://www.fastcompany.com/90473758/what-would-happen-if-the-world-reacted-to-climate-change-like-its-reacting-to-the-coronavirus



[you may have noticed]
*STATUS OF SPRING*
How do you know when spring has begun? Is it the appearance of the first 
tiny leaves on the trees, or the first crocus plants peeping through the 
snow? The First Leaf and First Bloom Indices are synthetic measures of 
these early season events in plants, based on recent temperature 
conditions. These models allow us to track the progression of spring 
onset across the country.

*HOW DOES THIS SPRING COMPARE TO "NORMAL"?*
Comparison of 2020 spring leaf out to average from 1981-2010
March 9, 2020

Spring leaf out continues to spread up the middle of the country, three 
to four weeks earlier than a long-term average (1981-2010) in some 
locations. Washington, DC and New York City are 24 days early, Nantucket 
is 30 days early, Louisville, KY is 2 days early and St. Louis, MO is 3 
days early.

Comparison of 2020 spring bloom to average from 1981-2010
Spring leaf out has also arrived in parts of the West. Spring leaf out 
is on time to 2 days late in San Diego, LA, and San Francisco, CA and 10 
days early in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA. Parts of northern Texas and 
Oklahoma are on time to one week late.

Spring bloom has also arrived in several Southeast and Southwest states. 
Spring bloom is between 1 day and 3 weeks early.

Check back on this page throughout the spring for updates on when spring 
arrived and whether spring was early or late for your location. 
https://www.usanpn.org/news/spring

Download static maps of Spring Leaf Out 
https://www.usanpn.org/files/npn/maps/six-leaf-index-anomaly.png
and Spring Bloom 
https://www.usanpn.org/files/npn/maps/six-bloom-index-anomaly.png
https://www.usanpn.org/news/spring



[early fire season]
*Wildfires burn more than 30,000 acres in Oklahoma*
Fires have ravaged multiple regions of Oklahoma during a dry and windy 
season.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/486675-wildfires-burn-more-than-30000-acres-in-oklahoma



[or it is just a practice calamity]
*Why the coronavirus outbreak is terrible news for climate change*
It'll sap funding and political will--but actually, it should.
by James Temple
Mar 9, 2020
This article is part of our ongoing coverage of the coronavirus 
outbreak. Our full list of articles related to Covid-19 is available here.

It appears increasingly likely that the global coronavirus outbreak will 
cut greenhouse-gas emissions this year, as deepening public health 
concerns ground planes and squeeze international trade.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the rapidly spreading virus, 
which has already killed thousands and forced millions into quarantine, 
will meaningfully reduce the dangers of climate change.

As with the rare instances when worldwide carbon pollution dipped in the 
past, driven by earlier economic shocks, diseases, and wars, emissions 
are likely to rise again as soon as the economy bounces back. In the 
meantime, if the virus leads to a full-blown global pandemic and 
economic crash, it could easily drain money and political will from 
climate efforts.

In fact, we absolutely should dedicate the bulk of our international 
attention and resources to the outbreak at this moment, given the grave 
and immediate public health dangers.

Still, the fear is that the highly contagious coronavirus could 
complicate the challenges of climate change--which presents serious, if 
longer-term, threats of its own--at a point when it was crucial to make 
rapid strides. There are several ways this could happen:

If capital markets lock up, it's going to become incredibly difficult 
for companies to secure the financing necessary to move ahead with any 
pending solar, wind, and battery projects, much less propose new ones.

Global oil prices took a historic plunge on Monday, driven by a price 
war between Russia and Saudi Arabia as well as coronavirus concerns. 
Cheap gas could make electric vehicles, already more expensive, a harder 
sell for consumers. It's why Tesla's stock crashed on Monday.

China produces a huge share of the world's solar panels, wind turbines, 
and lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles and grid storage 
projects. Companies there have already said they're grappling with 
supply issues as well as declines in production and shipments, which 
have in turn slowed some renewables projects overseas. Any resulting 
clampdown on trade with the nation where the outbreak originated, which 
some members of the Trump administration are pushing for, will only 
further disrupt these clean-energy supply chain and distribution networks.

Rising health and financial fears could also divert public attention 
from the problem. Climate change has become an increasingly high 
priority for average voters in recent years, and the motivating force 
behind a rising youth activist movement around the world, building 
pressure on politicians to take serious action. But in the midst of an 
economic downturn and public health crisis, people would understandably 
become more focused on immediate health concerns and pocketbook 
issues--i.e. their jobs, retirement savings, and homes. The longer-term 
dangers of climate change would take a back seat.

There are a few potentially countervailing forces as well.

A sustained drop in oil prices could make longer-term investments in 
clean energy more attractive for major energy players, as a Eurasia 
Group analyst argued to Axios. And maybe certain nations will respond to 
an economic crisis with stimulus efforts that pump money into clean 
energy and climate adaption.

Some have also suggested that the deadly virus could bring about 
long-lasting shifts in carbon-intensive behaviors, if people remain 
fearful of flying and cruise ships, or come to prefer remote working and 
virtual conferences. Or that our rapid responses in the face of an acute 
danger show that we can make the sorts of societal changes demanded by 
the climate change.

But Gernot Wagner, a clinical associate professor at New York 
University's Department of Environmental Studies, says most of the risks 
run against progress on climate change right now--and that we should be 
very careful about any larger lessons we draw from this moment.

"Emissions in China are down because the economy has stopped and people 
are dying, and because poor people are not able to get medicine and 
food," he says. "This is not an analogy for how we want to decrease 
emissions from climate change."

Indeed, the whole point of addressing global warming is to avoid 
widespread suffering and death. So it's important to keep in mind, as we 
game out the long-term consequences of the coronavirus outbreak, that 
the short-term impacts are clear: many, many people are going to become 
ill and die.

That's an unequivocally bad thing. And slowing the outbreak and 
providing proper care needs to be our highest priority right now.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615338/coronavirus-emissions-climate-change/


[community power]
*DOES THIS TINY ISLAND OFF THE COAST OF MAINE HOLD THE ANSWER TO THE 
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY?*
Integrating time-tested technology with emerging innovations, remote 
Isle au Haut could be a renewable energy model for the rest of the world...
- - -
The "Next, Next" Grid

How the microgrid is controlled is what makes Isle au Haut's energy 
system the "next, next grid": an algorithm-based computer program 
complemented by machine learning and artificial intelligence.

Created by Portland, Maine–based Introspective Systems, the software -- 
which is also being considered for use in Europe and Africa -- 
calculates the cost of electricity in real time so consumers can manage 
their energy choices.

"We're doing optimal resource allocation," explained Kay Aikin, 
Introspective Systems' cofounder and CEO, during a webinar about the 
island's project presented last summer to the Smart Electric Power 
Alliance, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C.

That means, for example, the software figures out when it's most 
cost-effective to heat a building using the air-to-water heat pump/hot 
water tank system or to use a building's backup heat source, such as a 
kerosene-fueled monitor heater, then individual consumers, using a 
dashboard interface resembling a tablet computer, can select the option 
that makes the most sense for them. And they can do so knowing that 
their privacy is protected: The consumer's energy management choices are 
not shared with the power company.

It's pretty exciting stuff, Wilson says. "When this whole thing goes 
together, it's going to be a very different system than we thought we 
would have when we started."...
- -
"We have to have a plan that takes one baby step at time," he says. 
"When you look at what the Isle au Haut is doing, that's a really 
interesting baby step that actually is a pretty big leap in the scheme 
of things."
https://ensia.com/features/isle-au-haut-renewable-energy-electricity-microgrid/



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - March 11, 2009 *
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann rips Paul Dellegatto, meteorologist for Tampa, 
Florida Fox affiliate WTVT, for failing to forecast the facts about 
human-caused climate change:

    "[I]n the middle of a forecast [Dellegatto] declared global warming
    was no longer a threat.  [Dellegatto stated,] 'Athens, Georgia, just
    about a week ago, and they had up to half a foot of snow.  Las Vegas
    got snow.  It actually snowed in New Orleans this winter.'
    Dellegatto went on to say the current warming trend peaked in 1998
    and, quote, 'I just think the whole global warming doomsayer theory
    is tough to see, based on recent calculations.'

    "Once again, this is science's fault.  Never should have used the
    phrase 'global warming.'  'Weather disaster' would have worked. The
    mistake was they thought even the dimmer folks would realize during
    global warming, it could get colder from time to time, especially in
    the places where it's not supposed to, like Tampa last month, when
    it got down to 28 here.  This guy missed it, obviously because he
    was more worried about putting in global warming denial propaganda
    into the local freaking weather forecast on the local freaking Fox
    station!"

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/countdown/29645384#29645384

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.