Climate Scientists in Copenhagen Issue Key Messages

As I noted two days ago, the University of Copenhagen this past week hosted an international scientific congress on climate change under the heading "Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions," and was attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries.

The main aim of the congress was to provide a synthesis of existing and emerging scientific knowledge necessary in order to make intelligent societal decisions concerning application of mitigation and adaptation strategies in response to climate change. Following the congress they issued a press release with the key messages; the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report June 2009.

The six preliminary key messages are noted below:

Key Message 1: Climatic Trends

Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.

Key Message 2: Social disruption

The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on "dangerous climate change." Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2oC will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.

Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy

Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid 'dangerous climate change' regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.

Key Message 4 - Equity Dimensions

Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.

Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable

There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches 'economic, technological, behavioural, management' to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.

Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge

To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.

The full text of the press release can be found here.

Climate Scientists in Emergency Meeting to Stimulate Action

"This is not a regular scientific conference," says University of Copenhagen marine biologist Katherine Richardson, "This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."

Pretty direct for a scientist, to say that they intend to stimulate action by politicians. That's how serious climate researchers feel the situation is right now...they are making direct calls for policy-makers to do something, and do it now.

The event is the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change , which features keynotes by leading advocates for dramatic global warming policies, as well as most of the world's climate scientists. These scientists are in Copenahagen to collate the latest scientific findings so they can exert pressure on the negotiating teams that will meet in Copenhagen next December. The concern is that the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 is already severely out-of-date. In fact, recent studies suggest that the pace of climate disruption has quickened, so that we may already be too late to stop changes that scientists warned of just five years ago. In fact, the most recent IPCC report failed to adequately account for several climatic tipping points ― like methane released from a thawing tundra, and decreased albedo from a melting arctic ― which are happening earlier than predicted. The concern now is that climate change could accelerate so quickly that humanity will be unable to slow the outcome.

The conference will synthesize the latest climate change science and publish a master document for negotiators heading to the larger meeting to be held in December, also in Copenhagen.

Got Imagination? Get $100,000 in Research Awards

Are you imaginative? Okay, I should be a little more exact than that. Are you imaginative and do research in the fields of wastewater, water reuse, biosolids, stormwater, watersheds, and similar areas?

Yes? Well, welcome to WERF.

The Water Environment Research Foundation (that's the WERF part), through its Paul L. Busch Award, is offering $100,000 to encourage researchers in the above fields to "use their imagination, take risks, explore new directions, and ultimately realize the possibilities inherent in their valuable work." The annual Award is one of the largest in the water quality industry, and has provided nearly a million dollars in its nine years "to support researchers imbued with the visionary spirit of its namesake, a leader in the water quality community who challenged engineers and scientists to devise new technologies and solutions for addressing ongoing water quality issues."

According to WERF, which is based in Alexandria, Virginia, "recent recipients are already addressing many of the growing concerns of today’s communities, such as maintaining healthy waters in which we fish, swim, and play; improving energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gasses and improve the air we breathe; and assuring that we are prepared to address new challenges as they arise."

One recent recipient, David Sedlak of the University of California, Berkeley extols the benefits of the $100,000 award: "By the very nature of it being an award and not a more traditional grant," he explains, "it has given us a lot more flexibility to explore the possibilities and to pursue new lines of research that arise in our ongoing work." It should be noted that the Award can go to a team of researchers, or to an individual.

Interested individuals or teams must submit their application to WERF by June 1, 2009. More information on the Paul L. Busch Award, as well as the application process, is online at www.werf.org/PaulLBusch.

Science Policy Takes Center Stage at the White House - Embryonic Stem Cells and More

Today, American President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order that lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The ban was put in place by past-president George W. Bush shortly after taking office in 2001. In lifting the ban, Obama said "we will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

But perhaps even more importantly, Obama took this occasion to issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy "to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making."

In sharp contrast to what many feel was a former president adverse to science, President Obama insisted that supporting science was a critical function of government. The memorandum, he said, would

"ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives."

He made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering." Further, he said that "a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody."

The emphasis on science is very welcome to most scientists who feel that their ability to pursue meaning research has been unduly restricted in recent years.

White House Favors National Fuel Standard

The saga continues. During the Bush administration California passed a law that would require a 30% reduction in emissions by 2016. The idea was to encourage burning of less fuel or burning it more efficiently, whouch would improve gasoline mileage and reduce emissions. The law would also speed the entry of electric vehicles into the marketplace. The overall goal is reduce CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change.

But the California law requires a waiver from federal law to proceed. EPA during the Bush administration refused to grant that waiver and the newly installed Obama administration instructed EPA to rereview the waiver application. Many thought this would mean that the waiver would be granted and California could proceed.

As always, however, the issue is more complicated than the oversimplified picture ideologues in various camps would have you believe. In fact, if California proceeds it is likely to be followed by about a dozen other states. But many states would not follow suit. This would result in a patchwork of emissions standards that makes it very difficult for manufacturers to adjust their practices. It is especially difficult for the auto industry, which as we all know is undergoing some trying times.

Meanwhile, there is a less stringent federal regulation in the works that would stimulate the vehicle design changes needed to satisfy a congressionally ordered fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2010. That amounts to about a 40% improvement over current industry performance. Both President Obama and auto industry representatives indicated this past week that a single national standard for fuel efficiency would present a more manageable system. The goal would be to address both California's desire for more stringent standards and the need for consistent standards across the distribution area. Otherwise there is the potential of having to produce cars meeting different standards depending on where they are shipped (or driven post consumer purchase as individuals relocate around the country).

Congress, EPA, the President, and industry are all contributing to the debate. After the Congressional hearing last week it was still unclear which direction legislation would go, though the single standard seems a more efficient way to address the issue.

Global Warming Skeptics Sponsor Their Own Climate Change Conference

It's called, The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change and bills itself as "the world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics." The conference, whose theme is “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?,” runs from Sunday, March 8 and concludes Tuesday, March 10 in New York.

Produced by The Heartland Institute and 57 (mostly conservative leaning) co-sponsoring organizations, the conference is "devoted to answering questions overlooked by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." [Oddly enough, a scan of the program didn't turn up anything that hadn't already been covered by the IPCC.] According to the Heartland Institute's press release for the event, "the IPCC concluded global temperatures may already have reached crisis proportions, and that human activity was a key driver in raising temperatures, primarily because of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." Not surprisingly, the participants of this conference say they will present "a substantially different viewpoint."

The Heartland Institute indicates that there will be over 70 speakers at the event, including as you might expect some of the usual skeptics like S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etc., as well as the founders of various conservative and skeptic think tanks like Fred Smith of the Competetive Enterprise Institute and Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP. The most notable speaker is the Honorable Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic (and currently President of the EU by virtue of the rolling 6-month EU presidency structure). Trained as an economist before going into politics, President Klaus has expressed his dissatisfaction with various scientific pursuits, including global warming and the new REACH chemical control legislation in Europe.

It will be interesting to see what science might come out of the conference and whether it impacts the consensus that human activity has contributed to the increased rate of global warming.

REACH Hits Malaysia - Chemical Control Meets Free Trade?

A work plan is being developed by a group trying to implement a Malaysian version of Europe's Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program. The work group includes the Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI), the Chemical Industries Council of Malaysia (CICM), and other relevant government agencies.

The MITI Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, warned that any legislation implemented for health and environment reasons should not impede the free flow of trade. This has been a major concern for companies both inside and outside Europe regarding REACH. Mr. Yassin insisted that "such regulations should be simple, harmonised and not incur additional expenses to the cost of doing business in the industry."

The goal, therefore, is to assist small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in complying with the European Union-REACH regulation and the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). While larger companies often have significant resources and in-house experts, SMEs often have quite limited resources.

In his prepared remarks, which were read by the deputy minister of MITI at the International Conference on Chemical Control Legislation (ChemCon Asia 2009) being held in Kuala Lumpur, he said that the world is increasingly becoming smaller due to globalisation and what affects the chemical industry in Europe will have a direct and indirect impact on it in Asia and vice versa.

Malaysia is the most recent in implementing a series of changes in the chemical control field as REACH takes hold in Europe, Canada is well into evaluating its inventory of existing chemicals, Japan adjusts its chemical control legislation, and the US begins its hearings looking at how to "reform TSCA."

“Here at the Secret Science Club, all scientists are rock stars”

So announces Margaret Mittelbach, as she introduces that evening’s headliner: a microbiologist from Columbia University, who will talk about vertical farming within skyscrapers to create sustainable ecocities.

Ooh, aah...

This is the monthly meeting of the Secret Science Club.

According to a Christian Science Monitor article dated today, "neuroscientists, marine biologists, astrophysicists, paleontologists, and genomics experts have all taken a bow at the Secret Science Club since it started three years ago." Founded by Mittelbach, fellow natural history writer Michael Crewdson, and Dorian Devins, a radio producer, the Secret Science Club began as a publicity event to launch their first book, “Carnivorous Nights: On the Trail of the Tasmanian Tiger.” The original event was "a wacky taxidermy contest," but it went so well that it grew into "a club where people could talk about science in an informal setting."

But the Club is not alone, as it belongs to a growing international community of “science cafes” (or “cafe scientifique” in Europe where they got their start 10 years ago) "where scientists and ordinary citizens can have a lively discussion in a social setting far from the lecture hall or laboratory."

On the whole, I think science clubs are a great idea. In fact, I might start one of my own.

Japan Amends Chemical Control Law

I've documented efforts by Europe, the US, and Canada to change their chemical control laws and/or review their Inventory chemicals. Well, now Japan is getting in on the act. As it has elsewhere, public interest in ensuring the safety of chemical substances has been on the rise in Japan. At the global level, agreements such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) have pushed to minimize adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020. Other regional and international efforts have also put pressure on individual countries to enact changes to their long standing chemical control laws.

So at the end of February 2009, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment issued an announcement that a bill to amend the had been submitted to the 171st ordinary session of the Diet. This bill is aimed at introducing a comprehensive control system to minimize the adverse effects of chemical substances on human health and the environment and at ensuring the international consistency of Japanese regulations on chemicals.

The main changes include:

• Companies that have manufactured or imported any chemical substance, including an existing one, in excess of the specified amounts are newly obliged to notify applications containing quantity and other information to the government.

• Upon receipt of those applications, the government screens and prioritizes substances subject to detailed risk assessment. For these substances, the manufacturers/importers may be required to submit information on hazardous properties for government evaluation.

• Based on the evaluation, the government decides whether to regulate the manufacture/used of the substance and its product, etc.

The Japanese amendments reflect changes recently made in Canada (Chemical Management Plan), Europe (REACH), and potentially the United States, which began hearings last week aimed at reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Mixed Responses - Scientists in US Happy, Scientists in Canada Not So Much

Most scientists didn't miss the obvious reference to reinvigorating and respecting science in President Obama's inauguration speech. The Kansas City Star newspaper had a nice article yesterday about this:

Researchers welcome Obama’s emphasis on science by Malcolm Garcia

In contrast, researchers in Canada have had a slightly different response to science budgets.

Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories by Carolyn Abraham

What do you think?

Unintended Consequences - Ethanol is Up/Ethanol is Down

News came this week that USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson won't decide for several months the tricky issue of how much ethanol should be blended into gasoline. EPA is in discussions with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transportation, who are coordinating on the possible raising of the amount of ethanol blended in the US supply, all while trying to agree on a policy for regulating vehicle emissions.

Why is this important? Well, the current US standard is that ethanol can be 10% of the gasoline mixture (whereas in Brazil the mandate is 25% ethanol, mostly from sugar cane). Current law in the US requires that 11.1 billion gallons of biofuels (mostly corn-based ethanol) must be used this year in accordance with the Renewable Fuels Standard. But ethanol demand has fallen because the high prices of gasoline made people drive less, which in turn helped to decrease the price of gas. Add in the large subsidies given to ethanol producers to ramp up production a year or two ago and the now the worldwide recession, and ethanol producers are suddenly operating at about 85% capacity and struggling to pay the bills. One company, VeraSun Energy Corp., the second largest US ethanol maker, actually filed for bankruptcy protection late last year. Raising the ethanol standard would help keep ethanol use high even as fuel consumption drops.

Meanwhile, other issues have been raised as to whether corn-ethanol is a good fuel option or not. The increased use of corn for fuel rather than food had wide-ranging impacts not only on direct costs of eating corn, but also on the costs of beef, milk and other foods that rely on corn as feed. Given that ethanol actually reduces fuel-economy, and the technological difficulties of fuel delivery systems (e.g., corrosion of iron parts, internal wear, and spark generation), some have argued that it is not a viable alternative to gasoline. Yet others point to its advantages as a renewable resource and note that non-food vegetation (i.e., cellulosic) ethanol is being developed, as will innovations to automobile and other fuel delivery systems. All innovations necessitate further downstream innovations (and subsequently, jobs), they say.

What this means, of course, is that we need to be aware of the interconnectedness of our technologies. Changes to one can impact others. So merely switching from one fuel source to another isn't enough - we need to be aware of all the other impacts that such a switch might necessitate.

Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

I have noted previously that there is a big push in this Congress to take a long hard look at the current chemical control regulations in the United States. Well, on Thursday, February 26, 2009 the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on "Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.” The hearing was designed to address the perception of critical gaps in the statute and explore how those gaps might hinder effective chemical safety policy in the United States.

The following witnesses, spanning a range of government, advocacy, and industry groups, all testified:

John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Government Accountability Office

J. Clarence Davies, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future (Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Policy in the George H.W. Bush Administration)

Maureen Swanson, Healthy Children Project Coordinator, Learning Disabilities Association of America

Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director/Director for Policy Initiatives, WE ACT For Environmental Justice (West Harlem Environmental Action)

Michael Wright, Director of Health and Safety, United Steelworkers

Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund

Kathy Gerwig, Vice President, Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer, Kaiser Permanente

Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council

V.M. DeLisi, President, Fanwood Chemical, Inc., Chairman, International Affairs Committee, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

Charles T. Drevna, President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

A link to the written testimony and video of the Subcommittee can be found on the Committee web site.

Will the Real Roger Pielke Please Stand Up?

A while back I wrote a piece from a book by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. called The Honest Broker. In my article I mentioned the four idealized roles of scientists in Pielke's view: The Pure Scientist, the Science Arbiter, the Issue Advocate, and the Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives. After I published the piece it was pointed out to me that Pielke is a "climate skeptic." Since I'm about to write a follow up piece on another concept Pielke raises in the Honest Broker, I thought it worth looking into Pielke further. And here the plot thickens.

To begin with, there are two Roger A. Pielke's, Jr. and Sr. Both are professors and both have expressed their concerns about climate science. And both have been offered by climate skeptics as "one of their own." Ironically, the Wiki article on Roger A. Pielke, Sr. says that he "has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." In fact, Pielke, Sr. has said:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).

Similarly, Pielke, Jr. is often used as an icon of the skeptics, yet he too is not so much of a critic as the skeptics would have you believe. Dylan Otto Krider, founder of Whoslying, "a nonprofit devoted to correcting statements that do not responsibly reflect objective reality," today writes in a "Skepticism Examiner" blog called "Who is Roger Pielke, Jr." about his knowledge of the man and what he really thinks about climate change. It's an interesting article and I highly recommend that people read it.

The point is that all of us must be very careful not to simply take at face value what we hear on the news or read in blogs. It is always wise to get information from multiple sources and, whenever possible, go to the original source of the information. Believe it or not, people have been known to "reinterpret" information, either intentionally or through intellectual indolence.

Hey Scientists - Being Brilliant Isn't Enough!

One of the purposes of this blog is to highlight how scientists and policy makers interact. A friend recently sent me a link to an article called "Why turning out brilliant scientists isn't enough," written by Robert Winston and published in the New Scientist magazine on February 3, 2009. [If you missed it, the title has the link to the original article.]

Professor Winston argues that scientists must "engage with - and, crucially, listen to - the public..." It's not enough to be pure scientists, so he suggests that "a two-way dialogue...seems more likely than a one-way lecture to lead to a maturing of viewes and resolution of conflict." And we all know how much scientists (and academics) like to lecture. Winston suggests that if scientists "show we care about the ethical implications of our work, people are likely to be sympathetic."

This, of course, ties in with science literacy, and understanding and appreciating science at an early age. More importantly perhaps, is the ability to teach critical thinking to our youth so that they can consider whether some of the information they receive as they grow older makes sense or not.

While Winston believes we have come a long way toward improved interaction between scientists and the public, he insists we need to do much more. "We have a duty to conduct research to ensure that the ways we attempt to engage really do have an impact..."