[TheClimate.Vote] March 27, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Mar 27 11:00:19 EDT 2020
/*March 27, 2020*/
[aid to understanding]
*The Analogy Between Covid-19 and Climate Change Is Eerily Precise*
First deny the problem, then say the solution is too expensive? The
playbook here is all too familiar.
GILAD EDELMANIDEAS - 3.25.2020
The parallel to climate change, in other words, was even tighter than I
realized.
"We went through the stages of climate change denial in the matter of a
week," said Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at the University of Regina
in Saskatchewan, Canada, who studies how misinformation spreads. Naomi
Oreskes, a historian of science who has studied the origins of climate
disinformation, spelled out the pattern in an email: "First, one denies
the problem, then one denies its severity, and then one says it is too
difficult or expensive to fix, and/or that the proposed solution
threatens our freedom."
These strategies, Oreskes explained, can exist side by side, depending
on the context. The crudest skeptics, like the snowball-wielding senator
from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, still deny the phenomenon itself: Humans
aren't warming the planet, look how cold it is outside! More
sophisticated players, confronting a tidal wave of scientific data, may
accept that the Earth is warming, but they argue that the ill effects
are overstated and incommensurate with the costs of aggressive action.
As a Wall Street Journal op-ed from 2017 put it, the economic damage one
might expect from climate change "does not justify policies that cost
more than 0.1 percentage point of growth."
Now we're faced with the threat of another global catastrophe arising
from the clash of nature and modern human activity. As with climate
change, the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic are difficult to
predict with confidence. As with climate change, the uncertainty
interval encompasses utter cataclysm. As with climate change, any
serious effort to mitigate or stave off this disaster will require major
economic disruptions. And, as with climate change, such efforts to save
the world must be put in place before any of the experts' doomsday
warnings could ever be proved true.
So we see the same pattern of skeptical response from Republican elites.
Whether it's driven by self-interest (corporate profits, a president's
hopes of reelection) or by small government ideology, the approach sends
a powerful signal to the party's voters. If you take this problem
seriously, you must be one of them, not us.
"The climate change issue has been transformed into a badge of who
people think they are," said Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist and
environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado at
Boulder. "So if you're a good card-carrying Republican in the Midwest,
then you'd better be against that climate change stuff. And if you're a
West Coast liberal, or you live in Boulder, like me, of course you
support fighting climate change." When scientific questions become
political issues, he added, people's beliefs become statements of
identity. "To some extent we see that with the coronavirus."
This partisan bubble effect is only amplified by the situation on the
ground, where the distribution of infections has been anything but
politically neutral. The worst-hit areas so far are deep blue cities in
deep blue states: Seattle and New York, as well as San Francisco. For
that reason, Pielke holds out hope that the coronavirus debate might not
devolve completely into partisan identity signaling. "I'm not ready to
say this fits our conventional motivated reasoning model of Republicans
and Democrats that we've seen on other issues," he said. As the disease
spreads and hits its peak in different places, the impact of direct
experience could overwhelm the power of identity.
- - -
It's frightening to think what the pattern of climate denial means for
the coronavirus crisis. But it might be even more terrifying to think
what the pattern of coronavirus denial means for the climate crisis. If
a plea to sacrifice human life for the sake of the economy becomes
Republican dogma, this does not bode well for our ability to handle the
even greater threat of rising temperatures around the world. After all,
the worst effects of global warming are still decades away. Our elderly
ruling class, and the elderly voters who elect them, may be dead and
gone by the time Miami is underwater. But those same old folks are
precisely the ones who are most at risk from Covid-19.
"I think what [all this] illustrates is the depth of the problem we're
facing with climate change," said Pennycook of the University of Regina.
"If we can't get bipartisan agreement on a global pandemic that's
presently spreading, it's making me less optimistic that we'll ever see
any change on people's attitudes toward climate change until it's too late."
WIRED is providing unlimited free access to stories about the
coronavirus pandemic. Sign up for our Coronavirus Update to get the
latest in your
inbox.https://www.wired.com/newsletter/science?sourceCode=ArticleLinkBottom
https://www.wired.com/story/the-analogy-between-covid-19-and-climate-change-is-eerily-precise/
[Big Idea from Politico Magazine]
*What the Coronavirus Curve Teaches Us About Climate Change*
Humans don't easily grasp the concept of exponential growth, but it's
exactly why coronavirus has gotten so hard to manage--and why climate
change could too.
By HOWARD KUNREUTHER and PAUL SLOVIC
03/26/2020
Howard Kunreuther is co-director of the Wharton Risk Management and
Decision Processes Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He is
co-author, with Robert Meyer, of The Ostrich Paradox: Why We
Underprepare for Disasters.
Paul Slovic is president of Decision Research and professor of
psychology at the University of Oregon. He is the author of The
Perception of Risk.
The coronavirus pandemic--sadly--has introduced or reintroduced many
people to the concept of an exponential curve, in which a quantity grows
at an increasing rate over time, as the number of people contracting the
virus currently is doing. It is this curve that so many of us are trying
to "flatten" through social distancing and other mitigating measures,
small and large.
It's easy to project a pattern of smooth, linear growth: one person gets
the coronavirus today, another person contracts it tomorrow, a third
person gets it on the third day, and the process continues in this
manner, the cases simply adding. But most people, including leaders and
policymakers, have a harder time imagining exponential growth, which
means you can have two cases of coronavirus tomorrow, four on the third
day, hundreds after the seventh day and thousands soon after--a
situation that's challenging to anticipate and manage. That's the nature
of pandemics.
It's also how climate change works. And if there's any silver lining in
this mess, it's that the coronavirus pandemic is teaching us a valuable
lesson about the perils of ignoring destructive processes--and perhaps
even larger, longer-term disasters--that increase exponentially. Even if
growth looks mild in the moment--think of the earliest segments on an
exponential curve like the red line shown in the illustration above--it
will soon enough be severe. In other words, delay is the enemy.
- -
The human mind does not easily grasp the explosive nature of exponential
growth. This was demonstrated more than 40 years ago in a series of
pioneering psychological experiments conducted in the Netherlands by
Willem Wagenaar and his colleagues. In one study, participants were
shown a hypothetical index of air pollution beginning in 1970 at a low
value of 3 and rising yearly in an exponential way to 7, 20, 55 and,
finally, 148 by 1974. Asked to intuitively predict the index value for
1979, many of the respondents produced estimates at or below 10 percent
of the correct value of about 21,000 (which can be determined from the
underlying exponential equation). Subsequent experiments have observed
similarly dramatic underestimation of exponential growth and showed that
it typically results from straight-line projections based on early small
increases.
The deceptive nature of exponential growth is similarly conveyed by the
riddle of a single lily pad in a pond. Suppose each member of this
species reproduces once a day so that on the second day there are two
lily pads, on the third day there are four, on the fourth day there are
eight, etc. On Day 48, the pond is covered completely. How long did it
take to be covered halfway? The answer is 47 days. Moreover, even after
40 days of exponential growth, you would barely know the lily pads are
there, as they would cover only 1/256th (0.4 percent) of the pond at
that time. For a period of time, we can easily ignore the steady
exponential growth of lily pads--until they smother the pond.
With respect to the coronavirus, the initial doubling of the relatively
small numbers of infected cases and deaths evoked little concern outside
China in January and most of February, since, for weeks, people around
the world had little or no personal exposure to the virus or its
victims. But the deceptively mild and seemingly faraway beginnings of
the current pandemic led health officials and governments to squander
many opportunities for early intervention. As a result, in the past few
weeks, the numbers have quickly become a torrent overwhelming our
capacity to stop the virus' spread and care for the victims. It took 67
days to reach 100,000 coronavirus cases worldwide. The second 100,000
cases took 11 days, and the third 100,000 took only four days.
Public-health authorities are now scrambling to communicate just how
steep and damaging the coronavirus growth curve has or could become, and
urgent response is becoming the law of the land.
Aside from the coronavirus pandemic, the biggest, most destructive
exponential growth processes that we must grapple with today are those
associated with global climate change. While it might be hard for humans
to detect that carbon emissions and their concentration in the
atmosphere are growing exponentially right now, that doesn't mean we
should rest easy. The opposite is true. As with the coronavirus, we need
to anticipate the climate crisis and act quickly and aggressively to
minimize further damages before they overwhelm us.
- - -
If carbon emissions continue to grow exponentially, most of the United
States could see 20 to 30 more days annually with maximum temperatures
higher than 90 degrees, with the Southeast potentially enduring 40 to 50
more such days. This extreme heat poses serious health risks, especially
for the very young and the elderly, construction and agricultural
workers, and those living in the core of urban areas. Wildfires present
another problem that is growing exponentially and is exacerbated by
global warming, as temperatures rise and humidity falls. California
experienced a particularly drawn-out drought from December 2011 to March
2019 that contributed to extensive wildfire damage that is likely to
increase significantly in the future because of climate change.
Taking a lesson from our flat-footed response to the coronavirus
pandemic, we can no longer delay aggressive actions to halt and reverse
what otherwise will be inevitable pandemic-like crises arising from
climate change. Already, tipping points have been reached: Human
populations and cultures are being devastated, and many species are
becoming extinct.
Obviously, dealing with the present dangers from the coronavirus must be
everyone's top priority at this moment. We will eventually get control
of this demon and begin to restore some semblance of normal life. When
we do, the world must turn its attention to reducing CO2 emissions and
stopping the further exponential havoc that climate change will wreak,
far sooner than we expect.
Michael Oppenheimer, Andrew Quist, Quinlyn Spellmeyer, Carol Heller and
Cameron Slovic contributed to this article.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/26/what-the-coronavirus-curve-teaches-us-about-climate-change-148318
[An obvious political solution]
*Green Group Urges Nationalization of Oil and Gas Industry Amid
Coronavirus Outbreak and Economic Upheaval*
"By taking fossil fuel companies under public ownership while they're
cheap to buy, the U.S. could ensure the country's energy demands are met
responsibly as it transitions to a net-zero-emissions economy."
by Julia Conley, staff writer
As the Trump administration weighs a bailout for the fossil fuel
industry amid plummeting oil prices, the climate action group Food &
Water Action demanded Monday that the government instead take the
economic and public health crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic
as an opportunity to take ownership of the struggling, environmentally
destructive industry.
The organization called on the federal government to take a controlling
stake in the fossil fuel sector, a move which it said would keep federal
funds from being used to benefit CEOs and wealthy fossil fuel investors.
As one in five Americans report a loss of work in recent weeks as a
result of the pandemic, the Trump administration is considering
low-interest loans for the industry, according to The New Republic--but
such proposals will only offer short-term assistance to an industry
which already has fewer jobs to offer Americans than the sustainable
energy sector, Food & Water Action said.
"It's time to take bold action to rescue the American economy and set an
unstable, polluting industry on the path to saving jobs," said Wenonah
Hauter, executive director of the group. "Public ownership of the oil
and gas industry will help secure the health, safety, and employment of
people across the country, while ensuring an energy transition that
prioritizes clean, safe food and water and a livable planet for all."
Under public ownership of fossil fuel companies, the group said, the
government would be forced to end oil and gas drilling, fracking, and
the building of fossil fuel infrastructure as the transition to the
green economy ramps up.
Government control of the industry could mirror the nationalization of
previously private companies during World Wars I and II, Kate Aronoff
wrote in The New Republic earlier this month. At the time, the U.S.
government took control of railroads in order to ensure troops and
supplies were transported quickly, as well as other industries and
private companies.
"Nationalization...has a long and proud tradition of navigating America
through times of crisis, from World War II to 9/11," Aronoff wrote. "No
sector may be facing as profound a crisis right now as the oil and gas
industry. With crashing oil prices, all manner of stimulus measures on
the table, and previously tight-fisted politicians now thinking more
creatively, nationalizing the fossil fuel industry might just be one of
the most sensible ideas on offer."
Aronoff continued:
By taking fossil fuel companies under public ownership while they're
cheap to buy, the U.S. could ensure the country's energy demands are met
responsibly as it transitions to a net-zero-emissions economy, without
the need to appease those companies' shareholders. Instead of giving up
the decision-making power such a big share purchase would ordinarily
entitle them to, as in a bailout, policymakers would use their new
equity stake to begin a managed decline of fossil fuels and guarantee
workers full pensions and wage parity.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump dismissed the notion of using the
Defense Production Act to take government control of industries, saying,
"We're a country not based on nationalizing our business."
Trump's statement was "completely wrong," tweeted Thomas Hanna of
Democracy Collaborative, a progressive think tank...
As the country faces a likely recession amid the coronavirus pandemic
and the collapsing markets that have resulted, Food & Water Action said
the government must give Americans greater control in any restructuring
of the fossil fuel industry while protecting energy workers jobs from
"the whims of Wall Street speculators, self-interested CEOs, or volatile
shifts in global commodity prices."
In Canada, supporters of transitioning to a green economy echoed the
call of Food & Water Watch, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau considered
a multi-billion dollar bailout of the country's oil and gas industry,
expected to be announced this week...
"Diverting desperately needed public funds to subsidize a poorly-managed
sunset industry during a pandemic is absolutely unconscionable," tweeted
Debra Davidson, an environmental sociology professor at the University
of Alberta. "If there was ever a time to divest fossil fuels it is now."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/23/green-group-urges-nationalization-oil-and-gas-industry-amid-coronavirus-outbreak-and
[from the Miami Herald]
*Climate change requires the same global urgency as the coronavirus
pandemic | Opinion*
BY SUSAN STEINHAUSER
MARCH 25, 2020
While, in a matter of months, COVID-19 has changed the world as we know
it, climate change has been transforming our world for decades. One
can't help but draw parallels between the two threats.
Here are some of the sad similarities between COVID-19 and climate change:
*Warning:* We were warned about both crises. The climate warning was
issued most dramatically in "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's 2006
documentary that showed the effects of global warming and the
correlation between greenhouse-gas emissions and the heating of our
planet. Yet the United States is poised to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement and our government continues to subsidize the fossil-fuel
industry.
*Response:* The world is responding to the virus because its effects are
so shocking. Curing the climate is more difficult. The damage from a
slowly warming atmosphere is sometimes tough to recognize. To prevent
further warming, it is imperative that we get to net zero carbon
emissions as soon as possible. We must transition away from fossil fuels
and move to an economy based on 100 percent clean renewable energy.
This transition will require bold action such as the Green New Deal. At
the bare minimum, we must fully restore the Environmental Protection
Agency and reinstate regulations that the current administration has
rolled back. And if action is slow at the global and federal levels, we
must persuade local officials to do what they can to slow the damage and
prepare us for what lies ahead.
To protect ourselves, infrastructure adaptation is key, whether to
address sea-level rise, storm intensity or rising temperatures.
Unfortunately, as some places become uninhabitable, people will have to
be relocated, an expensive and traumatic undertaking.
We must eliminate carbon emissions. A 2018 report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for us to limit the
increase in global temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels. We are already 1o warmer and the rise
accelerating.
It is as if we are speeding toward a brick wall that is also moving
toward us. Not only do we need to brake, but we need to go in reverse.
*Private sector:* Business is responding dramatically to COVID-19. It
has a lot at stake. We need a similar response to our climate
challenges. Government, alone, does not have the capacity for the
research and development of clean renewable energy and the removal of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Some businesses are beginning to
recognize the threat and the opportunities it also presents.
*Economic impact:* The damage from the virus is clear when you check
your investment accounts. But the cost of climate change can be
calculated, too. We are paying a bill for property damage from storms,
flooding and fire. Even loss of business goes into the equation.
But how do you calculate value of the secondary impacts such as physical
and emotional well-being? How much is food and water scarcity, and the
spread of mosquito-borne and water-borne disease, costing society?
Low-income families. They are the least able to protect themselves from
the virus and they are disproportionately at risk from the impacts of
climate change. They are more likely to have jobs that require them to
work outdoors, putting them at greater risk for heat illness, which
increases each year with rising temperatures.
They are less likely to have the resources and capacity to prepare for
and recover from extreme climate events. Although their homes may be
less resilient in the face of a natural disaster, they may fear
evacuation because of the expense.
*The careless: *We have seen the pictures of people who refuse to
maintain a safe distance during this COVID crisis. The world is filled
with people who refuse to reckon with climate change. In most cases,
they either do not understand the situation, do not believe the science,
or simply are frozen by the gravity of what we face.
Threat to human existence: COVID-19 hints at how vulnerable we are. But
the climate crisis if a far bigger danger. Our children and our
grandchildren will need to face it. Each day that goes by we spew more
damaging gases into the atmosphere, warming our planet. We must act now
by modifying our behavior and by electing officials who will pass
legislation and implement policies to help us "go into carbon reverse."
*There is hope: *As more and more people become aware of climate change,
they are calling for action. If we Americans are willing to elect the
right leaders, make lifestyle changes, and possibly even learn a new
trade, we will lead the global charge to address this threat.
Ironically, COVID-19 has pushed us in this direction. Globally we've
reduced emissions by reducing our travel and manufacturing. Going
forward, let's eliminate emissions because we choose to, not because a
pandemic has caused us to.
Susan Steinhauser is co-chair of the Climate Reality Project, Boca Raton
Chapter, political chair of the Broward Sierra Club and a volunteer with
the Coral Restoration Foundation.
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article241504566.html
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - March 27, 2007 *
March 27, 2007: In a post on CallingAllWingnuts.com about a recent
confrontation with Competitive Enterprise Institute honcho Myron Ebell,
blogger Mike Stark observes:
"Upon reflection, I really think there are a couple of lessons for
progressives to be found in this five minute exchange.
"First of all, when arguing with somebody that either has no credibility
or is not arguing a credible position, don't donate the credibility they
need to be seen as your equal."
"You see, by calling his credibility into question immediately - and not
letting him up for air - well, I've got no proof, but I really think
that everyone in the room knew that Mr. Ebell had been bettered. When we
ask policy or science questions of these charlatans, we give the
impression that we care what they think. We don't. We know they are rank
liars, we're just wondering if they'll be able to spin a sufficient
answer. But these guys get millions of dollars a year from the largest
corporate titans precisely because they have the skill to ink up the
issue. Why let them show off?
"Secondly, don't go out of your way to be nice or polite. Hell, I won't
afford these profit-gandists any respect on my blog, why the hell should
I do it face to face? A large part of their professional career derives
from their ability to mock me and the things I believe in. The
Competitive Enterprise Institute once liked global warming to 'being
invaded by space aliens' for example. By addressing these people with
the indignant scorn they deserve, you project the moral superiority of
your position. To many times it seems that Democratic and progressive
pundits are more interested in being our opponents' friends than we are
in vigorously arguing the issues. In this media environment - when equal
time is given to global warming deniers... well, we just can't afford
the small talk.
"In the end, these guys are not good people. This isn't a case of
principled people disagreeing. At this point in the global warming
debate, the only principled disagreements to be had revolve around what
we should be doing to address the crisis. The Myron Ebells of the world
- the die-hard denialists... well, we need to move them off the stage by
marginalizing them at every opportunity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200327/35d241a3/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list