A Different Kind of Message From the Climate Scientists

A Different Kind of Message From The Climate Scientists

Greetings,

OK … I pulled a Rip Van Winkle during June. Sent my last newsletter out to you in May (although at the end of May), then apparently fell asleep for all of June, and now it is July and I am just now sending out another one.

However, I was only half asleep, and I had one eye open. That means there was an abundance of Things That Caught My Eye. So that section is a little long, even with a lot of curating on my part.

But after that part comes my usual Op Ed. In this case it is about something that happened that I don’t think got enough attention, especially in the media aimed at the general public.

The item I speak of is a survey of climate scientists, but a very different kind of survey than I have seen before. And the results of the survey reveal a new and different message coming from those experts.

Hope you are staying cool, wherever you are!

Dan

BTW – My last Op Ed was about the dangers of heat waves, heat intensity, and WBT. I mentioned what had had happened in Texas. Well, thanks to Beryl, Houston and its environs are right back in the soup, and it may be worse that an last time.

_____________________________________________________

If you were forwarded this email, click the button below to sign up to receive these Blog Posts.

Join Our Email List

______________________________

_____________________________________________________

Links to Past Issues:

Climate Fiction and Climate Reality

Thoughts on Climate Descendants

Emissions as a Choice in Flying

The Forgotten Climate Holiday in April (not Earth Day)

Climate Change and the Snail Darter

St. Patrick's Day and Climate Change

Charging My Car in Manhattan

Step Into These Shoes Wearing a Climate and Energy Hat

Resilience Recognition is Rising - But There is That Other Thing

There is no "O" in Climate Change

It was an Instagram COP - And I am Finally OK with That

How to Talk About Climate With Your Crazy Uncle at Thanksgiving

Monty Python and Climate Change

What You Need to Know About NIMBYism

H mm..So How Much Did My Heat Pump Really Cost?

What it Means to Be a Climate Voter

The Climate Conundrum of Air Conditioning

Predictions Made About Utilities Made 10 Years Ago - How Did They Hold up?

My Vote For The Most Under-Appreciated Impact of Climate Change

10 Things I Should Have Written About

So I Went to the COP - Here Are My Top 10 Takeaways.

Efficiency and Clean Energy - Faster vs More

Efficiency & Clean Energy - More vs. Faster

It's Time For A Climate Vote - On the Record

Good COP, Bad COP .....Thoughts Before Glasgow

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

What I Should Have Written About

The Serenity of Being a Climate Voter

_____________________________________________________

Some Things That Caught My Eye ...

EVs With Gas Tanks – A Different Kind of Hybrid

There is a new EV player on the playing field, and one that I am only now becoming aware of. Not a pure EV, yet not your usual Hybrid. Meet the Range Extender

https://heatmap.news/electric-vehicles/range-extender-ramcharger-1500?utm_campaign=heatmap_daily_paid&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8fMOp6QlwOBISOuKDl3XTppS8r14qbpVd5KhoHgLCft0mMzkdv61nzM92R4ZaM_C6YJiNCgxApWkuPqDhjc5Spqxbz0Q&_hsmi=313376138&utm_content=313376138&utm_source=hs_email

Project 2025 Now Getting Attention

Last year, when I first learned of it, I told you about Project 2025 - a blueprint-type effort of the Heritage Foundation and other Think Tanks. While the switching of parties in the White House always brings with it new ideas for how to change government, Project 2025 is now being viewed as an aggressive example of that, including when it comes to energy and environmental policy and agencies. With the Party Conventions coming up soon, 2025 has begun to be viewed in the context of party platforms and as a self-described playbook.

https://www.project2025.org/

Another State Stops This Form of NIMBYism

Michigan has become the latest state to pass a law preventing homeowners’ associations from banning rooftop solar and other energy efficiency upgrades. Twenty-nine other states have similar legislation.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/michigan-homeowners-associations-law-rooftop-solar?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=beacon

And a European Country Takes a Similar Step

In a similar vein, Germany has at the national level, prohibited bans against placing solar panels on balconies. I must say I did not know “Balcony Solar” was a thing but apparently it is a big deal.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-gives-apartment-dwellers-legal-right-solar-power-2024-07-05/?utm_campaign=heatmap_am&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9PBcRCxLcn8wn6GR8bsu3anIF1dsLgNg9DD544sPl5luh6nzRQnI0Z4pk_vbMsmXgOU2TLKl1uJZko9Ua_iitL7XYQ2w&_hsmi=314525813&utm_content=314525813&utm_source=hs_email

Your Talking Points on Methane Potency

I must admit that I have often been confused by statements made by various people and in various writings that talk about how much more potent Methane (CH4) is than CO2 in terms of being a greenhouse gas.

The number that I have usually seen is CH4 being 28 times as potent. But then I sometimes see Methane being said to be 81 times as potent.

Which is correct?

Both are, depending on what timeframe you are using. I finally figured this out with a little bit of time spent on the websites of EPA and others.

EPA has a system to compare greenhouse gases called Global Warming Potential (GWP). CO2 has a value of 1, as it represents the baseline. EPA states that the GWP for CH4 over 20 years is 81, while the GWP for CH4 over 100 years is 38. Why? Methane is a short-lived gas, i.e. it largely dissipates from the atmosphere in 12 years.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#CH4-reference

Putting Direct Air Carbon Capture in Perspective

I have been reporting on the Direct Air Capture Project in Iceland, first on the small first phase, and then on the larger project recently fired up.

The latter is happening, and that is a good thing. We have to start somewhere. But to put things in perspective, when the new plant is at full capacity it will together with the first one, capture just over 40,000 tons of CO2 Annually.

That represents about 8,000 cars off the road, but more dramatically, represents only a few seconds of the world’s emissions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-08/in-iceland-world-s-biggest-carbon-removal-plant-run-by-climeworks-comes-online?cmpid=BBD070224_GREENDAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=240702&utm_campaign=greendaily&em bedded-checkout=true

Chevron

You may remember me many months ago highlighting the significance of the Supreme Court taking up challenges to the long-standing doctrine of “Chevron Deference”. The “deference” has been essentially to acknowledge the appropriateness of Executive Branch Agencies, and the experts within them, to be best equipped to craft rules and regulations that implement laws passed by Congress.

As you probably saw in the general media, the Supremes have ruled against Chevron deference. Here is a good piece on what happened.

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/01/supreme-court-post-chevron-climate-policy?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Guess What State Has the Highest Heat Risk to Health? Hint: It’s not Arizona

The CDC has a new “Heat and Health” website with analytics that produce a heat index that incorporates non-climate data (e.g. the prevalence of health insurance in a given area) to show heat risk.

An example of what that means is that the indices show that a low-income ZIP code in East Harlem, a Manhattan neighborhood in New York City, is twice as vulnerable to heat-related health problems as an adjacent ZIP code on the Upper East Side, which is one of the richest neighborhoods in the country, the index shows. The two ZIP codes are separated by East 96th Street, where a major subway line runs above ground and demographics change dramatically.

The ZIP codes have identical weather. But on every other measure used by CDC, the East Harlem area is worse off than its Upper East Side neighbor. The tracker measures 25 characteristics for each ZIP code.

https://ephtracking.cdc.gov/Applications/heatTracker/

How Your Stripes Are Changing

You likely have seen a depiction of rising temperatures over the past 100 years where each year is represented by a color stripe. The color of the stripe represents the annual average temperature for that year compared to the long-term average. The resulting graph looks a bit like a colored bar code.

What I didn’t know was that June 21 was #ShowYourStripes Day, with all sorts of communications and events based on the Stripes.

At the link below you can look at the Stripes graph for each state, and for at least one city per state. If you want to see something dramatic, look at the Stripes for Phoenix.

https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/2024-warming-stripes?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Some Talking Points on Attribution

I have mentioned before the evolving climate science subgenre called Climate Attribution. Its focus is to determine to what extent climate change is increasing the size, severity, impact, etc. of weather events which has always occurred. Among other things, it is important in being able to talk about weather events in a way that doesn’t sound like anything that happens is all because of climate change.

At the link below is a great explainer on attribution when it comes to what it calls “the Big Four” – Heat Waves/Domes, Wildfires, Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, and Extreme Rain/Floods/Landslides.

https://heatmap.news/guides/is-extreme-weather-climate-change?utm_campaign=heatmap_daily_paid&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_FGeXo3rQ9D2kreRI31ervz49uPdLYjDymuDTJikXxCivkYiXlQuik36gX1UBrUYvYvRtr_uB7UR-yq26nYLW_V7dW-w&_hsmi=312538977&utm_content=312538977&utm_source=hs_email

More Heat = More A/C = Higher Power Bill for Low-Income

That is a pretty easily understood equation above. But of course the variable that should be added is

" and Higher Percentage of Household Expense Total. Check out this latest report from the organization that represents the Heating Assistance Program Directors in the States.

https://neada.org/2024summeroutlook/

Twenty States Now Have Revenue-Replacement Fees on EVs

A new annual fee on electric vehicle drivers is slated to take effect next year after Vermont Governor recently signed one into law.

The EV fee is expected to help make up for a drop in state transportation drivers don’t pay the state tax on gasoline.

Starting in January 2025, electric vehicle drivers will be charged an annual fee equal to the amount they pay for their state vehicle registration — $98. Drivers with plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, will pay half as much. (Certain drivers could have the fee covered by a state electric vehicle incentive in the first year after they buy their car.)

The new fee is slated to remain in effect only until the state sets up a different kind of vehicle charge: an annual fee based on how many miles one drives. The state plans to have this “mileage-based user fee” in place once at least 15% of new cars sold in Vermont are electric.

The other states and their specific fee policies can be seen here:

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/states-that-charge-extra-fees-to-own-an-electric-vehicle

A Good Example of the Challenges of Decarbonizing a Supply Chain – Cement

I did a blurb on cement a short while ago and mentioned that it is estimated to account for 8% of worldwide emissions. This article primarily focuses on one company, which I am not promoting, but it talks about it is challenging to insert carbon-free materials in a supply chain when several people in that chain don’t care.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-industry/sublime-systems-low-carbon-cement-goes-commercial?amp%3Butm_medium=email&%3Butm_campaign=canary&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9pXjVJ3alK80y3BAWg0zES1XClbvQNJa-0B42iErTBCcW5Ch-J1wwXdV-sUxFFi-aXkALfYWCxSms0uPjzy81VptyQdw&_hsmi=309352262&utm_source=newsletter

In Climate Terms, How Many SUVs Equal How Many Countries

If the 360 million-plus SUVs on the world's roads were a country of their own, their CO2 emissions would now be the fifth largest, per IEA.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/29/suvs-climate-paris-agreement?utm_medium=email

Guess What Type of Electricity Demand Will be 9% of the Total by 2030

Time flies, and 2030 - a benchmark/milestone for many climate pledges and goals - will be here before we know it.

A lot of those goals and pledges focus on decarbonization of the electricity system.

But obviously the electricity system is not static and demand is rising, especially due to data centers and AI. It is further obvious that the pledges and goals will be hard to make if we don't get control over the potential emissions impact of those new components of demand.

Here are a few pieces I recently saw that reported on this issue:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/artificial-intelligence-doubles-data-center-demand-2030-EPRI/717467/?utm_medium=email

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-c1c56aa0-1dc8-11ef-8757-c3a3f7a9ccc2.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002028905

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/pages/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power-demand.html

Regardless of How You Feel About Nuclear Energy, Read This Article

This is one of the best overview pieces I have seen about nuclear power. It explains the history of nuclear in the U.S., where things stand now, and what is necessary for it to play a role going forward as a zero-emission resource. Great stats on various metrics for both the U.S. and the World. No paywall for the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/nuclear-power-climate-change/678483/?gift=mhG70N3G46M3QblvyMdQFxCDZxp1OrD4PuIh3Lzeptc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

I Have Never Included a Blurb Like This Before

In selecting and writing blurbs, I almost entirely focus on news and not opinion pieces. And I have never included an interview by one person of another.

But this interview with a climate expert is among the best exchange on the challenges of climate change I have ever read. Check it out at this free link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/18/magazine/ayana-elizabeth-johnson-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vk0.1f6S.YxTKXqOB-DeU&smid=url-share

2023 Energy Demand – Size of a Slice vs. Size of the Pie

According to the UK Think Tank Energy Institute, in 2023 fossil fuels were 81.5% of the global energy mix, down marginally from the prior year. But total demand grew and fossil use along with it, bringing another record in energy-related CO2 emissions. The Energy Institute argues in their Report that this casts doubt on whether the energy/climate transition has actually begun.

https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top’

____________________________________________________

gotten limaNot Ea Da

A Different Kind of Message

from the Climate Scientists

I personally know several climate scientists, including ones who have been part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That’s the official arm of the UN which monitors climate change and produces the widely anticipated Reports that serve as both status checks and forecasts for overall global warming, as well “check-up” measurements on nations are doing in reducing emissions and meeting their agreed-to targets. The IPCC is staffed by climate scientists from around the world.

I think many people think of scientists in general as often being unable to step out of their world of facts and data and unable to step back and see the forest for the trees. But while being a scientist may be a calling or simply a job, it does not seem to me climate scientists are people incapable of seeing the big picture.

And that is what a recent survey by the Guardian New Organization has looked at.

The Guardian approached every contactable lead author or review editor of IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied, 380 of 843. These scientists were not asked about data and science in the survey. They were asked what they believed was really going to happen. They were asked how they felt and what their thoughts were.

So, what did they say?

According to the Guardian the results show that many of the most climate-knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate-fueled havoc to unfold in the not-too-distant future.

Hundreds (77% of respondents) expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, going significantly beyond internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for the planet.

Almost half (42%) see a rise of at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.

The age of a scientist correlated to different expectations, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.

Some of the scientists said they envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Some used words like “hopeless”, “infuriated” and “scared” relative to the failure of governments to act despite the evidence that they should. Almost three-quarters of respondents in the survey cited a lack of political will as the reason the targets will be missed.

One scientist said, “What the f___ do we have to do to tell people how serious this is?”

One said, “1.5C is a political game – we were never going to reach this target.”

One scientist said, “I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” and authorities “will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, (and) food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”

In the face of such dire thinking, the scientists nevertheless pointed to the fact that every fraction of a degree must be avoided. They stressed the fact that losing the fight to stay below 1.5 does not mean the game is over, and that we then we must fight to stay below even slightly higher temps, where every degree counts in terms of what the extra warming will lead to.

Scientists have for some time attempted to convey that the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 is very, very significant, and much worse than the difference between 1.0 and 1.5. They cite a higher rate at which impacts get worse per degree of warming and talk about a tenth of a degree of warming as a serious matter. They talk in terms of our ecosystems and economies being largely adapted to the climate of the late 19^th and early 20^th century period, which they explain is the climate that that was consistent for thousands of years prior to that. Thus, it is the impacts that scale up in nonlinear fashion with linear temperature increase.

So, what should the rest of us make of the survey?

If we consider scientists to be people that speak only based on facts and not engage in conjecture (forget for a moment the pay-me-to-say-what-you-want variety), I think we need to set that view aside as we look at the survey results. The scientists who responded are not putting any spin on anything, and I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking from a position of political neutrality.

That means the results of this survey may be among the straightest of straight talk that we can get on our situation. And that means our situation is not good.

Straight talk on climate is hard to give. That’s because those of us who act as messengers on climate change are often torn between not scaring people with straight talk versus giving them the bad news that is already built in, with more to come. There is communications research to support each view, and as far as I know there is no consensus yet.

On my most recent appearance on the NPR listener call-in program I do, I had a caller who basically said that he thought it was too late for any meaningful action on climate change, and that essentially the game was over.

In answering, I found myself immediately playing devil’s advocate and arguing that it was not too late, and that we are still early “in the game” and used the idea of a “game of inches” as equivalent to fighting for every fraction of a degree that we can avoid.

Later, after the show, on my drive home, I could not stop wondering whether I had sounded too optimistic, and whether that was the best message I could have sent. I wondered if my talk had been “straight” enough?

I think that our situation is such that people need straight talk accompanied by big helping of encouragement. They need more than just the latter.

I for one want to thank the climate scientists who participated in the survey for giving us not just the science and the data, but for telling us how all that information makes them think and feel.

It certainly is hitting home with me. How about you?

_____________

If you were forwarded this email, click the button below to sign up to receive these Blog Posts.

Join Our Email List

_______________________

Links to Past Issues:

Climate Fiction and Climate Reality

Thoughts on Climate Descendants

Emissions as a Choice in Flying

The Forgotten Climate Holiday in April (not Earth Day)

Climate Change and the Snail Darter

St. Patrick's Day and Climate Change