[TheClimate.Vote] October 11, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Oct 11 08:00:28 EDT 2020
/*October 11, 2020*/
[campaign ad video talks climate change]
*Cherries | Joe Biden For President 2020*
Oct 3, 2020
https://youtu.be/0d0Pr2Iee8g
[no surprise]
*17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg endorses Joe Biden*
https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-endorses-biden-2020-10
[do the math]
*Why climate change is a time bomb*
Bryan Walsh, author of Future
The costs of keeping global warming below 1.5C would exceed the economic
benefits up through the year 2100, according to a new study.
Why it matters: One of the biggest challenges to climate action is time
delay: we need to pay now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we
won't experience the full benefits of those actions for generations into
the future.
By the numbers: In the study, published in PLOS One, researchers project
keeping warming below 1.5C would result in a net loss to the global
economy of approximately $40 trillion through 2100, compared to policies
that would keep warming to 2C.
That's because "transitioning from energy-dense fossil fuels back to
more dilute and intermittent renewable sources of energy like solar and
wind requires more in terms of land, human time and machinery to produce
the same amount of energy," Patrick Brown, a climate scientist and a
co-author of the paper, tweeted.
That lowers general economic well-being, which in turns tends to fall
hardest on the poorest in the world.
Between the lines: By the 22nd century, however, as the potential
effects of climate change continue to compound, the benefits of stronger
climate action begin to exceed the economic costs.
By 2300, the researchers calculate the net benefits would reach
thousands of trillions of dollars.
The big picture: Because CO2 warms the atmosphere for decades to
centuries, there's a built in time delay to the physics of climate
change that in turn reinforces political obstacles to action.
When we pay to reduce carbon emissions now, the full effects aren't felt
until the future, which means the present generation has to sacrifice to
help save the next ones.
Yes, but: The authors admit climate change will have major costs that
are difficult to fit into an economic model, like widespread
biodiversity loss, while cutting carbon emissions could have more
immediate co-benefits beyond climate change, like reducing toxic levels
of air pollution.
The bottom line: There are many reasons why climate change is considered
a wicked problem, but its time delay is one of the wickedest.
https://www.axios.com/climate-change-time-bomb-aa86ec80-5b15-4708-a4bd-1962d77dfaef.html
- -
[source material]
*Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming
mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates*
Patrick T. Brown ,Harry Saunders
Published: October 7, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239520
*Abstract*
Efforts to mitigate global warming are often justified through
calculations of the economic damages that may occur absent
mitigation. The earliest such damage estimates were speculative
mathematical representations, but some more recent studies provide
empirical estimates of damages on economic growth that accumulate
over time and result in larger damages than those estimated
previously. These heightened damage estimates have been used to
suggest that limiting global warming this century to 1.5 C avoids
tens of trillions of 2010 US$ in damage to gross world product
relative to limiting global warming to 2.0 C. However, in order to
estimate the net effect on gross world product, mitigation costs
associated with decarbonizing the world's energy systems must be
subtracted from the benefits of avoided damages. Here, we follow
previous work to parameterize the aforementioned heightened damage
estimates into a schematic global climate-economy model (DICE) so
that they can be weighed against mainstream estimates of mitigation
costs in a unified framework. We investigate the net effect of
mitigation on gross world product through finite time horizons under
a spectrum of exogenously defined levels of mitigation stringency.
We find that even under heightened damage estimates, the additional
mitigation costs of limiting global warming to 1.5 C (relative to
2.0 C) are higher than the additional avoided damages this century
under most parameter combinations considered. Specifically, using
our central parameter values, limiting global warming to 1.5 C
results in a net loss of gross world product of roughly forty
trillion US$ relative to 2 C and achieving either 1.5 C or 2.0 C
require a net sacrifice of gross world product, relative to a
no-mitigation case, though 2100 with a 3%/year discount rate.
However, the benefits of more stringent mitigation accumulate over
time and our calculations indicate that stabilizing warming at 1.5 C
or 2.0 C by 2100 would eventually confer net benefits of thousands
of trillions of US$ in gross world product by 2300. The results
emphasize the temporal asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and
benefits of avoided damages from climate change and thus the long
timeframe for which climate change mitigation investment pays off.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520
[measured optimism of TED video of 6 hours]
*[Full livestream] Watch the Countdown Global Launch, a call to action
on climate change*
TED
This virtual event, streamed free on 10.10.2020, is the Global Launch of
Countdown, a new initiative to accelerate solutions to the climate
crisis. Watch five curated sessions packed with more than 50 speakers,
activists, actors and musicians, who share actionable and science-backed
ideas, paired with moments of wonder, inspiration and optimism.
Presented by TED and Future Stewards.
Learn how you can take action on climate change and join the race to a
zero-carbon world:
#JoinTheCountdown
Website: https://countdown.ted.com
- - -
about cement https://youtu.be/5dVcn8NjbwY?t=15856 - Solidia Technologies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dVcn8NjbwY
[true-cost accounting]
*The true cost of wildfire*
Bill Gabbert
It is more than simply dollars spent to knock down the flames
October 8, 2020
- -
An article at National Public Radio recommends what we should be
focusing on when discussing the effects of wildfires instead of simply
the number of acres burned.
That general topic can cover not only the dollars spent while knocking
down the flames, but the actual cost of damage to infrastructure,
community water sources, flooding, mud slides, health effects of smoke
on populations, repairing the damage done in the burned areas,
rebuilding structures, mental health of residents, and the economic
effects of evacuations and reduced tourism.
Here is an excerpt from the NPR article:
Often, the human cost of wildfires has little to do with their size.
California's three most destructive wildfires aren't among the
state's largest. The 1991 Tunnel fire in the Oakland hills was
relatively tiny at 1,600 acres, but destroyed 2,900 structures and
killed 25 people. Even the Camp Fire, which burned more than 18,000
structures in Paradise, California, isn't even in the top 20, ranked
by acreage.
"I think we should concentrate more on the human losses," says
Ernesto Alvarado, professor of wildland fire at the University of
Washington. "Wildfires in populated areas, it doesn't matter what
size those are."
Public authorities could also report on a broader human impact: the
number of people experiencing harmful air due to smoke. While
detailed maps are available with smoke concentrations, showing the
air quality index, there are few measures of the scale of that
public health impact. Poor air quality due to smoke is linked to a
rise in emergency room visits due to asthma, stroke and heart attacks.
- -
A conference in Glenwood Springs, Colorado on Wednesday and Thursday of
this week explored a topic that does not make the news very often. It
was titled The True Cost of Wildfire.
Usually the costs we hear associated with wildfires are what
firefighters run up during the suppression phase. The National Incident
Management Situation Report provides those daily for most ongoing large
fires.
But other costs may be many times that of just suppression, and can
include structures burned, crops and pastures ruined, economic losses
from decreased tourism, medical treatment for the effects of smoke,
salaries of law enforcement and highway maintenance personnel,
counseling for post-traumatic stress disorder, costs incurred by
evacuees, infrastructure shutdowns, rehab of denuded slopes, flood and
debris flow prevention, and repairing damage to reservoirs filled with silt.
And of course we can't put a monetary value on the lives that are lost
in wildfires. In Colorado alone, fires since 2000 have killed 8
residents and 12 firefighters.
The total cost of a wildfire can be mitigated by fire-adaptive
communities, hazard fuel mitigation, fire prevention campaigns, and
prompt and aggressive initial attack of new fires with overwhelming
force by ground and air resources. Investments in these areas can save
large sums of money. And, it can save lives, something we don't hear
about very often when it comes to wildfire prevention and mitigation; or
spending money on adequate fire suppression resources.
- -
The chart below from EcoWest.org shows that federal spending per
wildfire has exceeded $100,000 on an annual basis several times since
2002. Since 2008 the cost per acre has varied between $500 and $1,000.
These numbers do not include most of the other associated costs we
listed above. (click on the chart to see a larger version)
https://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cost-per-wildfire-acre.jpg
https://wildfiretoday.com/2020/10/08/the-true-cost-of-wildfire-2/
[video talk]
*Earth Energy Imbalance - EEI: How HEAT Impacts Ocean, Land, Cryosphere,
and Atmosphere: Part 2 of 2*
Oct 9, 2020
Paul Beckwith
Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative
imbalance at the top of the atmosphere driving global warming. The Earth
Energy Imbalance (EEI) is the most critical number
defining the prospects for continued and accelerating global warming and
climate change. Understanding the heat gain of the Earth system -
particularly how much and where the heat is distributed - is fundamental
to understanding consequences like warming oceans, atmosphere and land;
rising surface temperatures; rising sea levels; and loss of grounded and
floating ice, which are all fundamental concerns for society. I chat
about a new peer-reviewed study, part of Global Climate Observing System
(GCOS) efforts to update Earth's heat budget and give updated numbers on
ocean warming and heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land. The
long-term Earth system heat gain over the period 1971-2018 comprises a
total heat gain of 358 ± 37 ZJ (Z - Zeta is 10**21) equivalent to a
global heating rate of 0.47 ± 0.1 W/m2. Heat distribution has the global
ocean with 89%, broken down into 52% in the upper 700m ocean depths, 28%
for the 700-2000m depths and 9% for below 2000m depths. Heat gain over
land amounts to 6%, 4% is available for the melting of grounded and
floating ice, and only 1% is available for atmospheric warming. EEI is
not only continuing, but also increasing: it amounts to 0.87±0.12 W/m2
during 2010-2018. Stabilization of climate, the goal of the universally
agreed upon United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, requires that
EEI be reduced to approximately zero to achieve Earth system
quasi-equilibrium. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be
reduced from about 410 ppm to 353 ppm to increase the amount of heat
radiation to space by 0.87 W/m2, bringing Earth back towards overall
energy balance. This simple number, EEI, is the most fundamental metric
that the scientific community and public must be aware of as the measure
of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing climate change
under control, and we call for an implementation of the EEI into the
global stocktake based on the best available science. Continued
quantification and reduced uncertainties in the Earth heat inventory can
be best achieved through the maintenance of the current global climate
observing system, its extension into areas of gaps in the sampling, and
the establishment of an international framework for concerted
multidisciplinary research of the Earth heat inventory as presented in
the study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHRAx8grYfM
[audio BBC Sounds]
*What Planet Are We On?...with Liz Bonnin*
Ep 1. David Attenborough - 'We Have To Believe It's Possible'
Available for over a year
The celebrated broadcaster, Sir David Attenborough, shares his thoughts
about the impact of the pandemic on tackling climate change. He says he
is frustrated by the delay of government action to protect the natural
world and tells us the excesses of capitalism should be "curbed" to save
nature.
Plus, Liz Bonnin, Matt McGrath and Victoria Gill reflect on where we are
at now and what lies ahead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08tmn3g?
[econ switch]
*Global energy demand to continue growth with shift to renewable energy: BP*
The 'Rapid' scenario assumes policies resulting in a sharp increase in
carbon prices while the 'Net Zero' reinforces 'Rapid' with major shifts
in societal behaviour. The third scenario is 'Business-as-Usual'
ETEnergyWorld September 15, 2020
- -
The report titled 'BP Energy Outlook 2020' is based on three scenarios,
which are alternative assumptions about policies and societal
preferences and are designed to help explore the range of outcomes
possible over the next 30 years.
The 'Rapid' scenario assumes policies resulting in a sharp increase in
carbon prices while the 'Net Zero' reinforces 'Rapid' with major shifts
in societal behaviour. The third scenario is 'Business-as-Usual'...
- -
"The share of primary energy from renewables grows from around 5 per
cent in 2018 to 60 per cent by 2050 in 'Net Zero', 45 per cent in
'Rapid' and 20 per cent in 'Business-as-Usual'. Wind and solar power
dominate this growth, underpinned by continuing falls in development
costs, lower in 2050 by around 30 per cent and 65 per cent for wind and
solar, respectively, in 'Rapid' and by 35 per cent and 70 per cent in
'Net Zero'," BP said.
The growth would require a significant acceleration in the build out of
renewable capacity. It said that in 'Rapid' and 'Net Zero', the average
annual increase in wind and solar capacity over the first half of the
Outlook was about 350 gigawatt (GW) and 550 (GW), respectively, compared
to the annual average of about 60 GW since 2000.
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/global-energy-demand-to-continue-growth-with-shift-to-renewable-energy-bp/78117367
[Digging back into the internet news archive and debate transcripts]
*On this day in the history of global warming - October11, 2000 Bush v.
Gore Debate*
In the second Presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and
Texas Governor George W. Bush, Gore says the US needs to take the lead
in confronting the climate crisis and embracing clean energy. Bush
claims that his environmental record as governor of Texas is not as bad
as has been alleged; Bush also attacks the concept of a carbon tax and
endorses "clean coal" and natural gas as energy solutions. Gore denies
that he supports a carbon tax, but endorses clean-energy tax incentives.
Bush tries to suggest that there's still a dispute in the scientific
community about the causes and severity of climate change, and denounces
the Kyoto Protocol. Gore defends the scientific consensus on climate,
and points out that we need to do right by future generations; in
response, Bush again suggests that there isn't a real consensus.
MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Vice President Gore, on the
environment. In your 1992 book you said, quote, "We must make the
rescue of our environment the central organizing principle for
civilization and there must be a wrenching transformation to save
the planet." Do you still feel that way?
GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the
consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study just
a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice
cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already many people see the
strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've never
seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the level of
pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news,
Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies,
like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to
build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first
into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other
kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are breathing down our
necks on this. They're moving very rapidly because they know that it
is a fast-growing world market. Some of these other countries,
particularly in the developing world, their pollution is much worse
than anywhere else and their people want higher standards of living.
And so they're looking for ways to satisfy their desire for a better
life and still reduce pollution at the same time. I think that
holding onto the old ways and the old argument that the environment
and the economy are in conflict is really outdated. We have to be
bold. We have to provide leadership. Now it's true that we disagree
on this. The governor said that he doesn't think this problem is
necessarily caused by people. He's for letting the oil companies
into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become
the smoggiest city in the country. And Texas is number one in
industrial pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I'll
tell you this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that
strengthen our economy.
MODERATOR: Governor?
BUSH: Well, let me start with Texas. We are a big industrial state.
We reduced our industrial waste by 11%. We cleaned up more brown
fields than any other administration in my state's history, 450 of
them. Our water is cleaner now.
MODERATOR: Explain what a brown field is to those who don't follow this.
BUSH: A brown field is an abandoned industrial site that just sits
idle in some of our urban centers. And people are willing to invest
capital in the brown fields don't want to do so for fear of lawsuit.
I think we ought to have federal liability protection, depending
upon whether or not standards have been met. The book you mentioned
that Vice President Gore wrote, he also called for taxing -- big
energy taxes in order to clean up the environment. And now that the
energy prices are high, I guess he's not advocating those big energy
taxes right now. I believe we ought to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to -- with half the money going to states so
states can make the right decisions for environmental quality. I
think we need to have clean coal technologies. I propose $2 billion
worth. By the way, I just found out the other day an interesting
fact, that there is a national petroleum reserve right next to -- in
Prudhoe Bay that your administration opened up for exploration in
that pristine area. And it was a smart move because there's gas
reserves up there. We need gas pipelines to bring the gas down. Gas
is a clean fuel that we can burn to -- we need to make sure that if
we decontrol our plants that there's mandatory -- that the plants
must conform to clean air standards, the grandfathered plants,
that's what we did in Texas. No excuses. You must conform. In other
words, there are practical things we can do. But it starts with
working in a collaborative effort with states and local folks. If
you own the land, every day is Earth Day. People care a lot about
their land and care about their environment. Not all wisdom is in
Washington, D.C. on this issue.
MODERATOR: Where do you see the basic difference in very simple
terms in two or three sentences between you and the governor on the
environment? If a voter wants to make a choice, what is it?
GORE: I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air,
and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges like global warming. He
is right that I'm not in favor of energy taxes. I am in favor of tax
cuts to encourage and give incentives for the quicker development of
these new kinds of technologies. And let me say again, Detroit is
rearing to go on that. We differ on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, as I have said. We differ on whether or not pollution
controls ought to be voluntary. I don't think you can -- I don't
think you can get results that way. We differ on the kinds of
appointments that we would make.
MODERATOR: Would you say it's a fundamental difference?
GORE: I think it's a fundamental difference. Let me give you an example.
MODERATOR: Hold on one second.
GORE: Okay, sure.
MODERATOR: We've talked about supply. I just want to know for
somebody -- we're getting close to the end of our time here. If
somebody wanted to vote on the environment, how would you draw the
differences, Governor?
BUSH: Well, I don't believe in command and control out of
Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but
again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels and I
think we ought to work with people at the local levels. And by the
way, I just want to make sure -- I can't let him just say something
and not correct it. The electric decontrol bill that I fought for
and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards, Mr. Vice
President. That's what we ought to do at the federal level when it
comes to grandfathered plants for utilities. I think there's a
difference. I think, for example, take -- when they took 40 million
acres of land out of circulation without consulting local officials,
I thought that was --
MODERATOR: That was out in the west?
BUSH: Out in the west, yeah. And so -- on the logging issue. That's
not the way I would have done it. Perhaps some of that land needs to
be set aside. But I certainly would have consulted with governors
and elected officials before I would have acted unilaterally.
MODERATOR: Would you believe the federal government still has some
new rules and new regulations and new laws to pass in the
environmental area or do you think --
BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they're based upon science and
they're reasonable. So long as people have input.
MODERATOR: What about global warming?
BUSH: I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But
I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I
don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell
you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United
States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air. Like Kyoto
Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that
treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as evidently 99
senators -- I think it was 99 senators supported that position.
MODERATOR: Global warming, the Senate did turn it down. I think --
BUSH: 99 to nothing.
GORE: Well, that vote wasn't exactly -- a lot of the supporters of
the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way
it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to
it in the Senate. I'm not for command and control techniques either.
I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry but also
with the citizen groups and local communities to control sprawl in
ways that the local communities themselves come up with. But I
disagree that we don't know the cause of global warming. I think
that we do. It's pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that
are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this.
Look, the world's temperature is going up, weather patterns are
changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. What
are we going to tell our children? I'm a grandfather now. I want to
be able to tell my grandson when I'm in my later years that I didn't
turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some
serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is -- it's written in the
book of Matthew, "Where your heart is, there is your treasure also."
And I believe that -- that we ought to recognize the value to our
children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the
environment in a way that's good for them.
BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just -- I think there has been -- some of the
scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been
changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound
scientist recently made a different --
MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated -- excuse me. Both of you
have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought.
GORE: I've been trying so hard not to.
MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your alls rules you are not
allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment ago.
BUSH: Twice.
MODERATOR: Now you just -- twice, sorry. (LAUGHTER)
GORE: That's an interruption, by the way.
MODERATOR: That's an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did it
so now --
BUSH: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President.
MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER) I'm
sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about these
things I've found out.
BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules.
MODERATOR: Yeah, right, exactly right. Go ahead.
BUSH: What the heck. I -- of course there's a lot -- look, global
warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously.
But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before
we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full
understanding of what's taking place. And I think to answer your
question, I think both of us care a lot about the environment. We
may have different approaches. We may have different approaches in
terms of how we deal with local folks. I just cited an example of
the administration just unilaterally acting without any input. And I
remember you gave a very good answer to New Hampshire about the
White Mountains, about how it was important to keep that
collaborative effort in place. I feel very strongly the same place.
It certainly wasn't the attitude that took place out west, however.
transcript -
https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-11-2000-debate-transcript/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?159296-1/presidential-candidates-debate -
(1:15:45 )
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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 mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can 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.
Messages have no tracking software.
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/20201011/10ba9d17/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list