Joseph J. Romm's Blog, page 93

This Report Says The World Can Go 100 Percent Renewable By 2050

A new report from Greenpeace says the world can be 100 percent renewable by 2050, and 85 percent renewable in just 15 years.

The 2015 Energy [R]evolution report, the latest in a series that has offered the most accurate projections of any major analysis, worldwide, says that for the first time, the path to 100 percent renewable is cost-neutral. In addition, no new technological advancements are needed, the report says.

“It’s basically political will,” Emily Rochon, a global energy strategist at Greenpeace, told ThinkProgress. “The primary premise of the Energy [R]evolution scenario is we have all of the solutions already on the table to get there.”

Under the scenario outlined in the report, global CO2 emissions would be stabilized by 2020 and would approach zero in 2050. Fossil fuels would be phased out, beginning with the most carbon-intensive sources. By 2030, two-thirds of the world’s electricity could come from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Transitioning to renewable energy is the only way to significantly decrease carbon emissions. In the United States, a third of emissions come from the electricity sector, another quarter comes from transportation, and industry — largely through electricity use and fossil fuel consumption — accounts for another 20 percent. The United States has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent by 2030, as part of its participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Global leaders will meet in Paris in December with the goal of developing a broad climate treaty to prevent average global temperatures from climbing past 2°C.

Economic considerations are often cited as a major hurdle to transitioning to renewable energy, but the Greenpeace report found that at every point during the transition, there would be more energy jobs than before. Rochon pointed out that during the economic downturn, the solar industry saw double-digit job growth.

“Renewable energy definitely means more on the jobs front,” Rochon said. By 2030, renewable energy will account for 87 percent of the jobs in the energy sector, the report says. The authors estimate there will be 9.7 million people working in solar PV.

The cost of developing renewable energy sources has fallen steeply in recent years, and, at this point, the fuel savings are “cost neutral” with investment in renewable energy, Rochon said. Amazingly, this is possible even though worldwide, governments pay $5.3 trillion annually to subsidize fossil fuels, according to a study by the International Energy Agency.

“Despite the fact that the playing field isn’t level and is tilted in the favor of fossil fuels, renewable energy sources are still winning,” Rochon told ThinkProgress.

Policies that support renewable energy, such as federal tax credits and net metering for residential solar installations, are considered critical drivers of renewable industries in the United States. The solar industry’s tax credit is set to expire at the end of 2016. None of the fossil fuel tax credits are set to expire at this time.

“A renewable energy future is within reach,” Rochon said. “It’s really up to our political leaders to say, yes, and we can do the work to get there.”

Tags

energy revolutionGreenpeaceHydrogenrenewablesSolarWind

The post This Report Says The World Can Go 100 Percent Renewable By 2050 appeared first on ThinkProgress.

The Important Message Behind All The Green Ribbons At The Emmys

As temperatures reached 100 degrees Fahrenheit Sunday at red carpet of the 67th Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles — making it the hottest Emmys ever — countless attendees were seen wearing a small green ribbon pinned over their award-show finery. Actor Jeffrey Tambor, who won the award for Outstanding Actor in a Comedy, donned the ribbon as he gave his acceptance speech, which he dedicated to the transgender community (he won the award for playing Maura Pfefferman in Amazon’s Transparent).

But while Tambor’s speech honored the transgender community — and highlighted the civil rights abuses they often face — the green ribbons sought to draw attention to another cause: climate change.

A round of applause for @jeffreytambor. #Emmys @transparent_tv pic.twitter.com/uPPn4RCM78

— Television Academy (@TelevisionAcad) September 21, 2015

Several members of the Transparent cast joined attendees like Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Louis CK, Don Cheadle, and Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin in wearing the ribbons, which were part of a campaign created by NRDC to call for strong action on climate change.

“Climate change is the most critical humanitarian crisis of our time,” NRDC wrote on Tumblr of the campaign. “In December, hundreds of world leaders will gather in Paris with an urgent mission: working together to finalize a new global agreement for combating climate change.”

Thanks to George R.R. Martin for wearing the #DemandClimateAction ribbon! Congrats everyone at #GameOfThrones! pic.twitter.com/rQYk0PvmVc

— NRDC (@NRDC) September 21, 2015

The ribbons sported the tag “#DemandClimateAction,” which corresponds to an NRDC petition by the same name that will be delivered to world leaders during December’s Paris climate talks.

None of the attendees that wore the ribbons mentioned climate action in their acceptance speeches, but some scholars have argued that by merely attaching their name to the issue, celebrities can help raise awareness in the public consciousness. Declan Fahy, an associate professor at American University’s School of Communication, pointed out in a piece for Yale Climate Connections that celebrities can “put a recognizable, individual face on a complex, systemic phenomenon like climate change and therefore make the issue connect with audiences, engaging them on the issue, and potentially mobilizing them to take action.”

Celebrities at @TheEmmys #DemandClimateAction with Green Ribbons – support @IamDonCheadle http://t.co/DJfCf6Wbwu pic.twitter.com/UAgW4lLERH

— Connect4Climate (@Connect4Climate) September 21, 2015

And celebrities are no strangers to embracing climate activism — Cheadle, who wore a green ribbon last night, is a UN Environmental Program Global Ambassador. Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio, Pharrell Williams, and Matt Damon are all vocal climate activists that work with environmental organizations fighting for everthing from renewable energy to clean water. And last September, many celebrities joined the People’s Climate March in New York City.

As the U.N. climate summit in Paris inches closer, expect the line between celebrity and climate activist to blur even further. At the beginning of 2015, the United Nations joined forces with notable figures like Bill Gates and Malala Yousafzai to help convince world leaders to take strong action on climate change in Paris. In July, the popular boy band One Direction released a video, in conjunction with the U.N. campaign, asking fans to pressure leaders to act on climate. And today, actor and activist Alec Baldwin joined Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, to present awards to 19 countries recognized for their leadership on climate.

Tags

Climate ChangeEmmys

The post The Important Message Behind All The Green Ribbons At The Emmys appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Pope Francis Attacked By Climate Deniers Over Support For Accurate Science

From George Will to the Heartland Institute, climate science deniers are a one-trick pony when it comes to responding to effective climate change communicators: smear, smear, smear. They are at it again, shamelessly, on the eve of the U.S. visit by the widely-admired Pope Francis — who issued a ground-breaking Encyclical on the moral urgency of climate action back in June.

George Will, the Donald Trump of deniers, wrote of the Pope, “Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation’s premises.” In other words, all you folks out there who honor the Pope, Will wants you to know that you really hate America.

The Heartland Institute’s marketing director, Gene Koprowski, actually said that he and his colleagues believe the Pope is motivated by “pagan remnants” of “nature worship” reasserting themselves in the Catholic Church. But then what do you expect from a group that just three years ago compared all those who accept climate science — and the journalists who report on it accurately — to mass “murderers and madmen” such as Charles Manson, the Unabomber, and Osama Bin Laden!

Even the Philadelphia Inquirer had trouble swallowing the notion that accepting climate science makes the head of the Catholic Church a pagan:

“I think we’re seeing the revelation of an animistic form in the church,” Koprowski said.

Whatever his motives, Francis is in lockstep with the scientific consensus…. Scientists project that if the world does not restrict emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, temperatures will rise an additional 4.7 to 8.6 degrees by century’s end.

What Francis understands that the deniers do not is that the inaction they preach all but guarantees warming at the high end of the range, which would be catastrophic to America and the world.

And Francis’s accurate understanding of climate science brings us back to a man with no understanding of climate science, George Will, the “Misinformer of the Year” for 2014.

Will asserts that Americans can’t “honor” the Pope because the pontiff supposedly opposes the things that made America great. “He stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources.”

Yes, Will, a leading voice against rationality and climate science, is accusing someone who gets the science right — and those who honor him — of being against science in a piece titled, “Pope Francis’ fact-free flamboyance.” This is Trump-like chutzpah. As leading climatologist Michael Mann has said, “George Will is known for grossly misstating the science of climate change.”

George Will may be the only major columnist in the country to ever have his own newspaper overtly contradict his lies and misstatements in its news pages.

Will’s second paragraph introduces what he apparently believes is his best example of the Pope’s “woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies”:

One example: “People occasionally forgive, but nature never does.” The Vatican’s majesty does not disguise the vacuity of this. Is Francis intimating that environmental damage is irreversible? He neglects what technology has accomplished regarding London’s air (see Page 1 of Dickens’s “Bleak House”) and other matters.

Memo to George Will: The climate change damage we are causing is irreversible. Indeed, we’ve known that fact since at least 2009, when a group scientists led by NOAA published a paper, “Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide emissions,” that concluded, “the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.”

If we were to listen to Will and Heartland, then we would be condemning our children, grandchildren, and countless future generations to “irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ‘dust bowl’ era and inexorable sea level rise.” That would make the planet a “bleak house” indeed.

While Will cites a work of fiction from the 1850s on his behalf, we should probably follow the Pope’s lead and base our action on actual science from the 21st century.

The world’s leading scientists repeatedly emphasize the “irreversibility” of climate change in their November 2014 synthesis of the entire scientific literature. Indeed, the Summary for Policymakers uses the word “irreversible” 14 times and has extended discussions of exactly what it means and why it matters.

Furthermore, every single major government in the world signed off on the Summary line by line without objection, making clear that this core conclusion has approached the realm of settled science. As the IPCC warns, we must slash carbon pollution now or risk “severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” Scientists have “high confidence” these devastating impacts occur “even with adaptation” — if we keep listening to those like Will preaching inaction.

Certainly the fact that we are on track to harm billions of people who contributed little or nothing to their harsh fate makes climate inaction a grave “wrong.” But what makes our current inaction uniquely immoral in the history of homo sapiens is that the large-scale harm is irreparable on any timescale that matters — and, of course, that we could avoid the worst of the irreparable harms at an astonishingly low net cost according to all major independent analyses.

Given the unique immorality of climate inaction, it is no surprise that the Pope — one of the world’s leading voices on morality and our responsibility to future generations — would speak out forcefully against it. Sadly, it is also no surprise that the climate science deniers would respond by trying to smear him.

As for whether Americans should honor the Pope for speaking out on climate change, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Republican President Theodore Roosevelt put it best back in 1910 when he said, “Conservation is a great moral issue for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.”

It is aggressive climate action, not continued inaction, that is patriotic and moral.

Tags

Climate ChangeClimate Change DeniersGeorge WillPope Francis

The post Pope Francis Attacked By Climate Deniers Over Support For Accurate Science appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Arctic Leaders To Congress: Oil Development In Alaska Is A Human Rights Issue

It takes Lorraine Netro, a Gwich’in leader from the community of Old Crow in the northern Yukon, three straight days to travel to Washington, D.C. It’s a journey she has been making for the past 15 years to share her story with members of Congress in the hope of gaining support for an issue that’s of crucial importance to Netro, her community of 300 residents, and many indigenous people of the Arctic: earning permanent protection for the Coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“When I get here, I’m really happy and honored that people would make time to listen to us, and to listen to our story and why it’s so important,” Netro told ThinkProgress. “We have had a roller coaster of a ride with the Arctic National Wildlife issue. And yet, our elders when they ask us to do this work, they ask us to do it in a good way, to be respectful, and to always be hopeful.”

Indigenous people are really at the forefront of climate change…

As Congress returned from its August recess, Netro again made the long journey to Washington, along with three other indigenous leaders. The leaders, all women, had a singular mission — to ask representatives to support H.R. 239, a bill currently before the House that would designate the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.

Even in a place known for rugged wilderness, the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska is a unique place. Home to over 200 species of migratory birds, it’s also the last onshore area where polar bears den. Each summer, more than 40,000 Porcupine caribou calves are born and nurse on the Coastal Plain, before beginning their migration hundreds of miles south. The area brims with so much life that the Gwich’in people, an indigenous group that has lived on the land stretching from northeastern Alaska into the Canadian Yukon for thousands of years, call the Coastal Plain “Iizhik Gwat’san Gwandaii Goodlit” — The Sacred Place Where Life Begins.

But beyond a diverse ecosystem and crucial habitat, the Coastal Plain is home to another precious resource: vast reserves of oil, potentially as much as 16 billion recoverable barrels. Developers have been eyeing those reserves for decades, even as environmentalists and local tribes have worked for the area’s ultimate preservation.

In April, President Obama dealt a blow to developers and politicians hoping to mine the Coastal Plain’s vast resources of oil by formally recommending that the area be set aside as wilderness — a designation that would keep the area indefinitely free from industrial development.

Only Congress has the power to designate an area as wilderness, the highest level of protection that government can bestow upon a region. And Congress has been notoriously hesitant to act on issues of wilderness designation, with more than 30 proposals currently languishing before lawmakers. Even the Coastal Plain itself is no stranger to attempted Congressional protection — since 1986, Congress has seen a bill intended to protect the area introduced every session.

But as Congress stalls on protecting the Coastal Plain, the Gwich’in and Inupiaq that live and depend on the resources of the Coastal Plain continue to serve dual roles as both activists and educators.

“I really was born into this issue of my community having to educate the world as to the fact that we live off the land still,” Princess Daazhraii Johnson, whose family is from Arctic Village on the outer edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, told ThinkProgress. “We’re very blessed in the sense that we are not a displaced people, we still live off our ancestral lands. And the only way we’re able to do that is if we have food security.”

Opening up the Coastal Plain to drilling would threaten crucial breeding habitat the Porcupine caribou, which the Gwich’in depend on for food. Alaska Department of Fish and Game studies of Porcupine caribou populations following oil developments have found reduced calving numbers after development — around the Prudhoe Bay oilfield on Alaska’s North Slope, for instance, calving activity was rare throughout the 1980s even though it was recorded before the oil development. A USGS Alaska Science Center study into the potential impacts of oil development on the Porcupine caribou calves of the Coastal Plain found that development would most likely restrict the area available for calving, resulting in reduced survival rates of Porcupine caribou calves.

“All our people from within the Gwich’in nation rely on the Porcupine caribou for food,” Netro said. “It has sustained us over thousands and thousands of years. Our people and our relatives in Alaska, we’ve always relied on the Porcupine caribou for food and clothing and tools. It’s very, very important to us.”

Since 1986, Congress has seen a bill intended to protect the Coastal Plains introduced every session

Even without development of the Coastal Plain’s oil resources, the Gwich’in communities are already facing threats to food security, as climate change impacts the migration patterns of both the Porcupine caribou and abundance of salmon that once filled the communities streams. According to Netro, in the last decade, the southern migratory route of the Porcupine caribou — which used to lead herds very close to Old Crow — has shifted further eastward, forcing Gwich’in hunters to travel further in order to find food. Sometimes, Netro said, the caribou herds are so far away that the hunters are unable to supply the community with enough food for the winter — leading to extreme food insecurity for a remote community that has to have all outside food flown in. In those cases, Netro said, a liter of milk can cost as much as $15.

“Indigenous people are really at the forefront of climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s the indigenous and poor people of the world that bear the brunt of having to deal with food shortages due to climate change, soil erosion, lack of fresh water.”

Declaring the Coastal Plain a wilderness area won’t in and of itself stop climate change, but it will stop fossil fuel companies from accessing stores of oil that environmentalists and scientists argue need to stay in the ground if the world is to avoid more than 2°C of global warming.

H.R. 239, which would designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness, was introduced to the House on January 9, 2015, but has yet to receive a vote. There is currently no equivalent bill in the Senate, though there’s hope that a bill will be created this year. Any bill — in the House or Senate — is sure to face staunch opposition from Republicans, spearheaded by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chair of the Senate Energy Committee and one of the most vocal opponents to the idea of creating a permanent wildlife refuge along the Plain. Following the Obama administration’s April recommendation, Murkowski released a statement saying that “a congressional designation of the coastal plain as wilderness will not happen on [her] watch.”

Still, both Johnson and Netro remain hopeful that a wilderness designation for the Coastal Plain will happen, pointing to things like the Pope’s vocal climate activism, President Obama’s trip to the Arctic, and the upcoming U.N. climate talks in Paris as signs that the world is beginning to understand the dangers of climate change.

“In the future, when this place is protected — 20 years from now — my son, when he is 21, is going to go to this place someday. And he’s going to know that he came to D.C. as a baby, with his mom, and that he played a role in protecting this place,” Johnson said. “And I know for a fact that he is going to be so grateful.”

Tags

Arctic National Wildlife RefugeClimate Change

The post Arctic Leaders To Congress: Oil Development In Alaska Is A Human Rights Issue appeared first on ThinkProgress.

47 Republican Senators Want To Block The EPA’s Clean Water Rule

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), along with 46 of her Republican colleagues, introduced a joint resolution Thursday “disapproving” of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the United States rule, a recently-added addition to the Clean Water Act that clarifies the EPA’s jurisdiction over some streams and wetlands.

The rule has been criticized as EPA overreach that will hurt business and has been subject to several lawsuits, from states as well as business groups, and legislation seeking to nullify it.

“Hardworking Iowans don’t need more Washington bureaucrats from the EPA telling our job creators how best to use their land,” Ernst said in a statement on the resolution, which seeks to block the rule.

The rule, developed with the Army Corps of Engineers using what a White House spokesman called “the best science available” to determine how waterways are connected, protects two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands that the Clean Water Act did not clearly cover before. The EPA estimates that a third of Americans get their drinking water from sources connected to the added waterways.

A bill in the Senate already seeks to nullify the rule. That bill, introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), passed the Senate Environment and Public Works committee in June in an 11-9 vote split cleanly along party lines, with only Republicans supporting it. President Obama has said he would veto any legislation stopping the rule.

At the moment, the rule has already been stopped in 13 states, after a judge in North Dakota issued a temporary injunction at the state’s request. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming were also party to the suit, which seeks to have the rule overturned.

“This ill-conceived rule ignores the thoughtful comments and serious concerns raised by farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and small businesses across the county,” Ernst said. “Furthermore, its expanded definition causes confusion, uncertainty and unnecessary red tape. Simply put, this one size fits all method is the wrong approach that puts our agriculture community at a disadvantage.”

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has repeatedly said the new rule will not affect the “normal farming operations” that are already exempt from the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, there will be no new requirements for agriculture or forestry, industries which will retain “all the decades long exemptions” they currently enjoy, she told reporters in May, when the rule was finalized.

While farmers and some business groups worry the rule will interfere with business, others — including a group of breweries that say their business depends on clean water — have applauded the rule. A National Wildlife Federation poll found that outdoor enthusiasts in Pennsylvania overwhelmingly support the tenets of WOTUS.

“It would be hard to find a more conservative group than the hunters and anglers we polled,” Lori Weigel, a partner at the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, told The Morning Call. “And yet their support of this policy is broad‐based and widespread, cutting across partisan and ideological divisions.”

Tags

EPAJoni ErnstRepublicansresolutionruleSenateWaters of the United Stateswaters of the usWOTUS

The post 47 Republican Senators Want To Block The EPA’s Clean Water Rule appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Catholic Congressman Will Skip Papal Address To Congress, Cites Climate Change

When Pope Francis addresses Congress in Washington, D.C. next week, at least one Republican representative won’t be in the audience.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) wrote a letter in Town Hall this week outlining why he’s skipping out on the pope’s visit to Congress. The main reason? Climate change.

“Media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change — a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis,” Gosar writes. “More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into “climate justice” and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies.”

Gosar, who states in the letter that he’s “a proud Catholic,” goes on to say that he’d gladly attend the pope’s speech if he had chosen instead to focus on issues like religious liberty and the need to combat ISIS.

“If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line. If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly,” he writes. “But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one.”

It’s true that Pope Francis is expected to address climate change during his visit to Washington, D.C. and New York City. The pope has made climate change and environmental issues a central part of his papacy — in his environmental encyclical, released in June, Pope Francis laid out the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change and spoke of the necessity to develop meaningful environmental policy.

But Gosar’s stance on climate change is out of line with the pope’s. In 2012 Gosar said climate change “is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.” In his letter this week, Gosar expounded reiterated his views on climate change.

“The earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree,” he writes. “If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”

But the pope’s calls for action on climate change are more in line with Catholicism than Gosar thinks. Pope Francis isn’t the first head of the Catholic church to connect environmentalism with theology: Pope Paul VI wrote in 1972 that “man and his environment are more inseparable than ever,” and Pope John Paul II, in his 1990 World Day of Peace statement, warned that the planet is threatened by “a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by a progressive decline in the quality of life.”

Though it’s not yet known what exactly Pope Francis will say during his trip to Washington and New York, he’s expected to discuss climate change and immigration issues.

It’s not clear yet whether other lawmakers who don’t agree with the pope’s stance on climate change will also skip out on his Congressional address. But in contrast to Gosar’s decision to boycott, some Republican lawmakers have actually used the pope’s visit to call attention to climate change. Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) sponsored a resolution, released Thursday, that called for action on climate change.

“If left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long-term fiscal challenges that we face as a nation,” the resolution, which was co-signed by 10 other Republicans, states.

Tags

Climate ChangePaul GosarPope Francis

The post Catholic Congressman Will Skip Papal Address To Congress, Cites Climate Change appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Climate Change And Overfishing Are Driving The World’s Oceans To The ‘Brink Of Collapse’

Within a single generation, human activity has severely damaged almost every aspect of our global oceans.

That’s the finding of a new World Wildlife Fund study, which revealed that marine populations have declined 49 percent between 1970 and 2012. The WWF’s Living Planet Index database, maintained and analysed by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), tracked 5,829 populations of 1,234 species ranging from sea birds to sharks to leatherback turtles to coral reefs. This dataset was almost twice as large as last year’s and focused on the effects climate change, habitat degradation, and over-fishing has taken on marine biodiversity.

“The picture is now clearer than ever: humanity is collectively mismanaging the ocean to the brink of collapse,” wrote Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International, in the report. Over-exploiting fisheries, damaging marine habitat, and global warming have all contributed to the degradation of the world’s oceans.

[image error]

CREDIT: Dylan Petrohilos/ThinkProgress

Populations of the Scombridae family of fish, which includes tunas, mackerels and bonitos, have fallen by 74 percent due to overfishing. The study refers to this overfishing trend as the “race for fish:” Humans are fishing at a faster rate than species can reproduce. A growing world demand for fish — partly driven by fishing subsidies estimated at up to $35 billion per year — is depleting many coastal fisheries and causing fishing fleets to look further into deeper waters. The declining stocks of bluefin and yellowfin are of particular concern, as populations of adult Pacific bluefin were estimated to be as low as 40,000 individuals last year.

Louise Heaps, Chief Adviser on Marine Policy at WWF-UK, said in the original press release that “by over-exploiting fisheries, degrading coastal habitats and not addressing global warming, we are sowing the seeds of ecological and economic catastrophe.”

Climate change is causing the ocean to change more rapidly than at any other point in millions of years, according to WWF. Rising temperatures and increased acidity levels caused by carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere further weaken ocean systems and degrade habitats, like coral reefs and mangroves.

The study predicted the possibility of losing all coral reefs by 2050 due to warming oceans and ocean acidification. This is not only a huge danger to a quarter of all marine species that live in coral reefs, but also to the communities that rely on reefs for economic and social benefits. WWF reported that 61 percent commercial fish stocks are fully-exploited.

Ken Norris, Director of Science at ZSL, said in the press release that “the ocean works hard in the background to keep us alive.” Our world’s oceans generate half of the world’s oxygen and absorb almost one-third of carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. Besides natural benefits, the ocean also feeds billions of people around the world. According to the report, fisheries and aquaculture assure the livelihoods of 10 to 12 percent of the global population.

“Establishing and enforcing marine reserves is one of the best things policy-makers can do to reverse the disturbing trends identified in the WWF report,” Shiva Polefka, an Ocean Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress. Marine reserves are a type of Marine Protected Area where fishing is not allowed.

[image error]

CREDIT: Dylan Petrohilos/ThinkProgress

“Evidence from around the world has shown that well-designed marine reserves basically serve as fish factories for waters far beyond the their boundaries, benefiting both the marine ecosystems that need help, and the fishermen that depend on them to feed their families or earn a living,” Polefka said.

Fortunately, policy-makers are beginning to act on that evidence. Polefka pointed out the success around the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which was expanded by the Obama Administration last September, making it the largest marine conservation area in the world. Next month the Chilean government will unveil plans for what would be the world’s biggest marine park, encompassing 278,000 square miles of ocean.

Only about 3 to 4 percent of the ocean is currently protected, but that number should soon be increasing. Aside from policy, researchers at WWF pointed out that eating responsibly sourced seafood and partaking in sustainable day-to-day habits make an impact to protect our oceans.

Tags

OceanOcean Acidification

The post Climate Change And Overfishing Are Driving The World’s Oceans To The ‘Brink Of Collapse’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

This U.S. Lab Just Agreed To Help China Use Even More Renewable Energy

Leaders from U.S. and Chinese cities, along with Vice President Joe Biden and a special representative from China, gathered in Los Angeles this week to announce new commitments and targets for meeting carbon emission goals. Unsurprisingly, the event didn’t warrant a mention in Wednesday’s debate, where candidates only denounced diplomacy with China.

The new targets are part of the bigger U.S.-China partnership on climate, which Republican leaders have ridiculed for not requiring action from China. But one announcement made at the U.S.-China Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities Summit points to real, tangible declines in China’s emissions, while offering U.S. scientists an opportunity to study the world’s biggest electrical grid.

They are planning massive deployments, especially of solar and wind

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a Department of Energy project, will be working with China’s Energy Research Institute, part of State Grid of China, the largest utility in the world and seventh on the Fortune Global 500 list, to study and improve China’s electricity grid.

The partnership grew out of a Chinese initiative, after State Grid’s chairman approached NREL last year to kick off the relationship, John Barnett, manager of NREL’s International Program, told ThinkProgress.

“The head of this enormous utility is thinking beyond the present,” Barnett said. “The air quality issues in China — and many other countries — have gotten more and more attention, and there is pressure on the utility to design a progression to a less polluting grid.”

That means decreasing China’s use of coal, and increasing its use of renewables. “They are planning massive deployments, especially of solar and wind,” Barnett said.

NREL’s agreement with State Grid focuses on three key areas, Barnett said: power system planning and operation support, energy systems integration, and market design. On the U.S. side, the research lab will have access to huge amounts of data as China changes how its electricity is produced, transmitted, and used.

China is the largest global emitter of greenhouse gases, and a large portion comes from burning coal for electricity. For reference, an 8 percent reduction in coal use over the first four months of the year resulted in a nearly 5 percent drop in the country’s overall carbon emissions — equal to the total amount emitted in Great Britain over the same time period.

The sheer scale of the electricity grid in China offers unique opportunities, for deployment of green technologies and for research. One Chinese solar company predicts that China will install 17.8 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity this year. The United States just passed the 20 GW milestone for all installations.

This growth is possible because China has roughly 1.3 billion people — all of whom have access to electricity, according to the World Bank.

“China has enormous deployment of renewables,” Barnett said. Data on what works and what doesn’t will help inform U.S. policymakers as renewable energy deployment increases here. The United States gets about 7 percent of its electricity from renewable resources such as wind and solar.

“At present, this seems like a good opportunity to work with this enormous utility that says it wants to greatly reduce its carbon emissions, which we see as in our national interests and global interests,” Barnett said.

Addressing climate change has been a key priority for the Obama administration, both at home and abroad. The recently released Clean Power Plan, which limits acceptable amounts of carbon emitted from power plants, is one way the administration is seeking to reduce the country’s carbon footprint and meet its international commitments, especially in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December.

If China — and, say, India — don’t succeed in transitioning to clean energy, their carbon emissions will swamp whatever everyone else does

Naysayers, including Republican congressional leadership and presidential candidates, contend that American action will not only have negative economic impacts, but also that it is fruitless without action from other countries. While the economic impacts of the Clean Power Plan and other mechanisms deployed to reduce carbon are highly debatable, it is certainly true that, as a worldwide issue, other major carbon emitters need to reduce their impact to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

“If you look at global carbon emissions, if China — and, say, India — don’t succeed in transitioning to clean energy, their carbon emissions will swamp whatever everyone else does,” Barnett said.

But, it seems, China is making significant steps forward. Last December, presidents Xi and Obama announced a climate pledge, which calls for the United States to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below its 2005 level in 2025 and for China to a peak CO2 emissions by or before 2030 and get 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2030. In 2014, China’s carbon emissions went down for the first time in history.

“The biggest chunk [of reduction] was in the power sector,” David Sandalow, a fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and a former official at the Department of Energy, told ThinkProgress. “The power sector is — ballpark — 70 percent coal or 80 percent coal, and coal use has been declining.”

In addition to huge investments in wind, solar, and transmission, half of the nuclear plants under construction in the world are in China, he said.

But while research and deployment projects bode well for China’s transition to renewable energy, it’s unclear how far the partnership will reach. State Grid’s chairman is pushing for a globally integrated grid — but security issues might stand in the way of that (admittedly, far-off) plan.

“One potential constraint on the U.S. and Chinese cooperation with respect to smart grid technology is cyber security issues,” Sandalow said. “The cyber security issue has become one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tension in the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and China.”

Obama is expected to address cyber security issues when Xi visits Washington, D.C. later this month.

Tags

carbonChinaClimate ChangeElectricitylabNRELpartnershipU.S.

The post This U.S. Lab Just Agreed To Help China Use Even More Renewable Energy appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Creators Of Award-Winning Series On Climate Change Hope To Have Even Greater Impact With New Season

National Geographic Channel is going to air Season 2 of the Emmy-winning TV series, “Years of Living Dangerously.” David Letterman, Cecily Strong, and the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi will be joining Season 1 correspondents Tom Friedman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ian Somerhalder, and Olivia Munn.

The first documentary series devoted to climate change ever to appear on a major network or premium cable, Season 1 of “Years” won the 2014 Emmy for outstanding non-fiction TV series — and can now be streamed on Netflix. James Cameron and Schwarzenegger are once again executive producers, along with co-creators (and former “60 Minutes” producers) Joel Bach and David Gelber who together have 13 Emmys.

[image error]

The National Geographic Channel — a joint venture between National Geographic Society (NGS) and Fox Networks launched in 2001 — is carried in 90 million U.S. households (as compared to 23 million for Showtime, which aired Season 1). It is also carried in 430 million households worldwide, broadcasting in 171 countries and 45 languages.

“Years of Living Dangerously is bold, audacious and has a proven track record,” said Courteney Monroe, the CEO of National Geographic Channels. “By combining the access and reputation of National Geographic with Hollywood’s brightest minds and journalism’s heaviest hitters, we plan to create even greater impact with the new season and awaken all of us to the reality of our global situation.” The full news release is here.

I will be continuing my role as Chief Science Advisor for the show. We are expecting a much bigger audience nationally and globally, building on the nearly 13 million people who watched part or all of Season 1 when it aired on Showtime, plus the millions more who subsequently watched it on DVD, Netflix, Hulu, and other online platforms — and in 145 countries around the world.

A great deal of concern has been raised over the recent announcement that NGS has expanded its long-standing media partnership with Fox to include National Geographic magazine and its online media platforms in return for a large infusion of cash. Fox is owned by the Rupert Murdoch empire, known for its climate disinformation. It’s worth noting that Fox has had majority ownership of NatGeo Channel from its inception. Also, the Murdoch empire was split in 2013, and the part that owns the channel (and that did this deal) is 21st-Century Fox, which, as of August, is run by Rupert’s son, James.

James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn are sustainability advocates, as Quartz ThinkProgress.

‘Years Of Living Dangerously’ Is Back For Season 2 On National Geographic

National Geographic Channel is going to air Season 2 of the Emmy-winning TV series, “Years of Living Dangerously.” David Letterman, Cecily Strong, and the Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi will be joining Season 1 correspondents Tom Friedman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ian Somerhalder, and Olivia Munn.

The first documentary series devoted to climate change ever to appear on a major network or premium cable, Season 1 of “Years” won the 2014 Emmy for outstanding non-fiction TV series — and can now be streamed on Netflix. James Cameron and Schwarzenegger are once again executive producers, along with co-creators (and former “60 Minutes” producers) Joel Bach and David Gelber who together have 13 Emmys.

[image error]

The National Geographic Channel — a joint venture between National Geographic Society (NGS) and Fox Networks launched in 2001 — is carried in 90 million U.S. households (as compared to 23 million for Showtime, which aired Season 1). It is also carried in 430 million households worldwide, broadcasting in 171 countries and 45 languages.

“Years of Living Dangerously is bold, audacious and has a proven track record,” said Courteney Monroe, the CEO of National Geographic Channels. “By combining the access and reputation of National Geographic with Hollywood’s brightest minds and journalism’s heaviest hitters, we plan to create even greater impact with the new season and awaken all of us to the reality of our global situation.” The full news release is here.

I will be continuing my role as Chief Science Advisor for the show. We are expecting a much bigger audience nationally and globally, building on the nearly 13 million people who watched part or all of Season 1 when it aired on Showtime, plus the millions more who subsequently watched it on DVD, Netflix, Hulu, and other online platforms — and in 145 countries around the world.

A great deal of concern has been raised over the recent announcement that NGS has expanded its long-standing media partnership with Fox to include National Geographic magazine and its online media platforms in return for a large infusion of cash. Fox is owned by the Rupert Murdoch empire, known for its climate disinformation. It’s worth noting that Fox has had majority ownership of NatGeo Channel from its inception. Also, the Murdoch empire was split in 2013, and the part that owns the channel (and that did this deal) is 21st-Century Fox, which, as of August, is run by Rupert’s son, James.

James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn are sustainability advocates, as Quartz ThinkProgress.