Applied Rationality focuses on public policy issues and tries to take a liberal perspective that is consistent (comments to the posts will often show otherwise) with neoclassical, rational-choice economics.
The Washington Post reports on yummy consequences of growing carbon emissions.
It is the dawn of the super crab.
Crabs are bulking up on carbon pollution that pours out of
power plants, factories and vehicles and settles in the oceans, turning
the tough crustaceans into even more fearsome predators.
Yummier still...
The problem extends beyond crabs and the Chesapeake Bay. Lobsters and
shrimp are also bulking up on carbon dioxide along the Atlantic coast.
The downside is that carbon hurts the development of oysters and coral.
Bloomberg reports on an astounding and historic energy development--the U.K.'s largest coal-fired power plant (and largest carbon producers) will shortly be refitted to burn biomass and theoretically be carbon neutral.
The change is astounding and historic because of its location in Northern England, not far from the rich coal fields that fed the U.K.'s (and initially the world's) industrial revolution.
If "King Coal" is threatened by renewable energy projects near its original throne, it's threatened everywhere.
Coal's loss may be the environment's gain. The refitted biomass units will emit significantly less carbon than the existing coal units. Also, the biomass is renewable. Biomass releases carbon when it is burned but takes an equivalent amount of carbon in as it is regrown.
However, the potential benefits come with a giant asterisk, involving a huge and uncertain now versus later proposition. The carbon is released almost instantaneously and takes years to recapture. Also, the units will require an enormous amount of biomass--about 7.5 million tons or 3 million acres of trees each year, according to the article.
Some of the biomass can be supplied through waste materials from other lumbering operations, but much more would still be required.
These requirements might mean an valuable jobs and export opportunity for commercial foresters in North Carolina and throughout North America.
From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are
rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the
world's most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers
report.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath
a "hot spot" for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along
the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times
to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to
the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The story continues
Those estimates became an issue in North Carolina recently when the
Legislature proposed using historic figures to calculate future sea
levels, rejecting higher rates from a state panel of experts. The USGS
study suggests an even higher level than the panel's estimate for 2100.
Meanwhile, the radical North Carolina legislature continues to push legislation that would constrain the Coastal Resources Commission from considering the full range of evidence and modeling in projecting sea-level rise for regulatory purposes.
The Washington Post reported yesterday on the special sea-level challenges faced by our northern neighbor, Norfolk, VA. Besides facing a rising sea, Norfolk is subsiding, meaning that its relative sea-level rise is faster than other areas.
In Norfolk, Virginia’s second-largest city, with 250,000 residents,
Faella’s concerns aren’t the isolated fears of one woman living on the
river’s edge. The entire city is worried. Miles of waterways that add to
Norfolk’s charm are also a major threat in the era of increased global
warming and relative rising sea levels, as well as its odd and unique
sinking ground.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration warns that Hampton Roads, anchored by Norfolk, is at the
greatest risk from sea-level rise for a metro area its size, save for
New Orleans.
Problems with subsidence, however, are not unique to Norfolk. Sections of North Carolina also have a history of sinking. The NC Department of Environmental and Natural Resources commissioned a study in 1993 that showed that Kinston and New Bern subsided at a rate of just over .15 inches per year from 1935-1978/9.
NC land subsidence is actually a feature in the larger global debate on sea-level rise. Global-warming skeptics cite NC's history of subsidence as one reason why measured sea-level rise may be less than it appears.
As Norfolk's soggy experience shows, the academic debate over whether sinking land or rising seas contributes more to relative sea-level changes doesn't matter much in coastal communities.
If you thought that this Kevin Costner bomb was over the top; prepare yourself for something even sillier.
Legislation to suppress the forecasts of the NC Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards will be debated in the NC Senate today. Under the Dome reports
Bloggers and TV comics have ridiculed it, and
now state legislators will get their first chance Thursday to debate
unusual legislation that would put tight restrictions on how state and
local agencies cope with rising sea levels.
The Senate
Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee will air the
proposal, which was drafted by Republicans in response to controversy
over a state-appointed science panel’s warning that a rise of one meter
(39 inches) is likely by the end of this century.
If the legislation goes through, new roads, bridges, utilities, and other public infrastructure could be put at risk by being placed in areas of rising waters. Subsidized development might also be encouraged in areas that may become a flood risk.
It would be one thing if private developers using entirely private money wanted to develop these areas. However, the developers inevitably reach into the public purse for infrastructure. Also, when disasters happen, the victims will expect (and will almost certainly receive) help. Don't look for the developers to be offering to help those victims then.
Public decision-making in this case entails two types of risks. Over-preparing (relying on a forecast that is too pessimistic) would be wasteful because it would involve either building too many protections or not building at all. However, under-preparing is likely worse because the entire initial investment could be lost. Under-preparing could also put lives at risk.
The science panel provided a range of forecasts; the one-meter projection was near the middle of this range. The forecasts were also in line with those of other state coastal agencies. The panel further recommended refining the forecasts every five years.
The forecast that would be mandated under the legislation would actually be substantially below the lowest forecast that the panel made. Relying on this wish, rather than the panel's judgment, would be a short-term boon for developers, but would likely bring high costs to other taxpayers.
North Carolina shouldn't substitute developers' wishes for sound, scientific judgment.
Horrible things are happening in 10 states north of North Carolina, where irresponsible do-gooders have implemented a carbon cap-and-trade system...that just might be working.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. (RGGI) reported yesterday that CO2 emissions in the 10 states that participate in the cap and trade program were 23 percent lower in 2009-2011 than in the preceding three years, even though electricity use only declined 2.4 percent.
The changes in climate policy did not appear to hurt the states' economic growth. Inflation-adjusted gross state products in the 10 RGGI states increased by 1.4 percent from 2008 to 2011 compared to 0.5 percent in non-RGGI states. From 2006-2008 the change in inflation-adjusted gross state products in RGGI and non-RGGI states was identical.
Ed Cone's post on the declining but still substantial demand for coal got me thinking about all of that "clean coal" that we keep hearing about.
You've seen the commercials.
If you visit the AmericasPower.org web-site, you can go to a nifty page that tells you that "Now is the time to get smart about clean coal electricity." That page provides a clickable map of all 50 states but no information whatsoever about using coal more cleanly.
You can also go to an Issues and Policy page that appears to oppose every policy that is currently proposed to clean up existing coal electricity plants.
You can also go to other pages that describe all sorts of technologies that could clean up coal if only the federal government would pony up all sorts of money. "Of course, these continued innovations require investment from both private industry and the American government."
None of it seems very clean, but they sure do use the word a lot.
Coastal flooding and our responses to it are an on-going and growing concern in North Carolina.
The outlook isn't getting any better. The New York Times reports
About 3.7 million Americans live within a few feet of high tide and risk being hit by more frequent coastal flooding in coming decades because of the sea level rise caused by global warming, according to new research.
If the pace of the rise accelerates as much as expected, researchers found, coastal flooding at levels that were once exceedingly rare could become an every-few-years occurrence by the middle of this century.
The researchers have put together a web-site showing low-lying areas that at risk of flooding.
Meanwhile, the Carolina Journal has recently said we should all just stick our collective heads in the beach sand.
State officials are pressuring local governments to plan for a one-meter sea-level rise by 2100, even though many independent scientists have argued the rise is highly unlikely if not impossible.
Even though a state advisory panel no longer recommends regulations based on the one-meter projection, local government officials worry that state regulators will try to implement those rules.
Such a policy, they say, would have a devastating impact on coastal economies, property values, and citizens’ ability to secure financing and property insurance. North Carolina also would become the first state to enact policies consistent with a projected sea-level rise of that magnitude.
In a 2010 report (PDF), the Coastal Resource Commission’s Science Panel said the sea level is likely to rise one meter by 2100. Now the commission is drafting policy “encouraging” coastal communities to consider accelerated rates of sea-level rise in local land-use and development planning.
A group of independent scientists have challenged the panel’s report, pushing the CRC to revise its draft sea-level rise policy so that the regulations in it read more like suggestions and the one-meter benchmark no longer appears.
There’s nothing scientific about the way the science panel came up with its one-meter projection, said John Droz, a physicist and environmental activist. Droz, with the help of more than 30 other scientists, wrote a critique (PDF) of the panel’s “NC Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report.”
The "independent" scientist who is quoted is actually a realtor who stopped working professionally in the sciences in 1979 and who is working on behalf of a pro-development coalition NC-20. The "30 other scientists" were sent copies of the report.
As Chico Marx once said, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes."
Dr. Peter Gleick, a renowned climate expert on water issues and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security posted a blog on the Huffington Post, confessing to obtaining internal information from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses and then distributing that information.
In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.
As Dr. Gleick undoubtedly knows, the conduct of science depends on ethical behavior and above all on a reputation for honesty. No one observes us in our laboratories or pouring over survey results, and even with peer review of the final product, much of what scientists do comes down to a matter of trust.
Indeed, part of the strategy of the Heartland Institute and others is to erode that trust by whatever means necessary.
Sadly, Dr. Gleick's deceit has helped that effort far more than the Heartland Institute could have dreamed.
As frustrating as it can sometimes be, science isn't a discipline where you can fight fire with fire. Scientific ethics can't be a sometimes thing.
Update (11:40 a.m., 2/21/12):While Dr. Gleick's actions were shameful, it's hard to have much sympathy for the Heartland Institute, which repeatedlyexulted in the release of private e-mails and documents from others.
Bloomberg has a fascinating slide show on nine so-called "planetary boundaries." These are biophysical thresholds, such as the amounts of greenhouse or ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere or the acidity of the oceans, beyond which scientists believe we risk catastrophic environmental change.
A 2009 article by Rockström and colleagues from Nature explains the concept more and argues that the planet has already passed the safe thresholds for greenhouse gases, species extinction rates, and nitrogen loading.
The thresholds are speculative. Scientists can't say for sure where (or in some cases even whether) there are points at which environmental systems tip from one set of dynamic relationships to another. The authors of the Nature article admit to being overly cautious in setting boundaries a safe distance within the catastrophic thresholds (sort of the way that the empty warning light on your dashboard indicates that you at risk of running out of gas but still have some time to get some).
The concept of boundaries fits well with economists' standard methodological approaches of constrained optimization and suggests a formal, practical approach for accommodating sustainability into growth modeling.
Not yet convinced that this year's crop of Republican candidates are reactionary extremists? A New York Times editorial observes
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has to be smiling. With one exception, none of the Republicans running for the Senate — including the 20 or so with a serious chance of winning — accept the scientific consensus that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.
Regretably, this list includes our own Sen. Richard Burr., who would be in line to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee if North Carolina is short-sighted enough to re-elect him.
I would encourage Sen. Burr and the other deniers to read the reports by the National Academy of Sciences
Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least 650,000 years and continue to rise.
There is no doubt that climate will continue to change throughout the 21st century and beyond, but there are still important questions regarding how large and how fast these changes will be, and what effects they will have in different regions. In some parts of the world, global warming could bring positive effects such as longer growing seasons and milder winters. Unfortunately, it is likely to bring harmful effects to a much higher percentage of the world’s people. For example, people in coastal communities will likely experience increased flooding due to rising sea levels.
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower.
Instead, look for denial and investigations to discredit scientists if the Republicans gain control.
Russia banned all exports of grain on Thursday after millions of acres of wheat withered in a severe drought, a portentous decision at a time when crop failures caused by heat and flooding span the northern hemisphere.
...The decision caused an immediate and sharp rise in the already high global price of wheat. It rose more than 8 percent in early trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on Thursday, after having increased about 90 percent since June because of the drought in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and parts of the European Union, and floods in Canada.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes the dire situation in Russia.
High temperatures and sparse rainfall dominated the climate of the world's largest country during June and July. With temperatures hovering 8–12°F (4–8°C) above average across a large swath of Russia, daily record high temperatures of 91°F (33°C) and 95°F (35°C) were recorded in Moscow on July 16th and 17th, breaking records that dated back to 1951 and 1938, respectively. On July 26th, the city recorded its highest temperature ever—98.9°F (37.2°C)—breaking the previous record of 98.2°F (36.8°C) set 90 years ago. The hot weather has had deadly consequences. More than 1,200 drowning deaths were reported as people tried to escape the heat across Russia. The worst drought conditions since 1972 destroyed 22 million acres (nine million hectares), an estimated 20 percent of the nation's crops, including grain, vegetable, and fodder. Additionally, a state of emergency was declared as 948 forest fires covering 64,000 acres (26,000 hectares) were burning in 18 provinces. Twenty-six forest fires and 34 peat fires were burning in the Moscow region on the 26th, leading to dangerous air pollution levels. Mosekomonitoring, the Moscow governement agency in charge of monitoring air pollution, said that smog levels were five to eight times greater than normal. According to Rianovosti, Russian meteorologists stated that the summer of 2010 was the hottest on record for the country.
A single season or year of bad weather does not equate to climate change. However, a warming climate would contribute to more heat waves and to localized droughts.
Critics of climate change policies are quick to point out the costs of those policies. The situation in Russia reminds us that unabated climate change has costs as well.
The National Research Council yesterday released three reports on the evidence regarding climate change, the need for the United States to reduce its greenhouse emissions, and the need to manage and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
A summary of the first report on the evidence on climate change states
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
The report calls for increased research to improve our understanding of these links and of the efficacy of possible responses.
a U.S. policy goal stated in terms of a budget for cumulative greenhouse gas emissions over the period 2012‑2050. With only so much to “spend” during this period, the nation should act now to: (1) take advantage of key near-term opportunities to limit greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., through energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources), and to create new and better emission reduction opportunities for the longer term (e.g., invest in research and development); (2) create a national policy framework within which actors at all levels can work toward a common goal; and (3) develop policy mechanisms durable enough to persist for decades but flexible enough to adapt to new information and understanding.
The third report recognizes that the U.S. will need to cope with some aspects of climate change.
Much of the nation’s experience to date in managing and protecting its people, resources, and infrastructure is based on the historic record of climate variability during a period of relatively stable climate. Adaptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm—one that considers a range of possible future climate conditions and associated impacts, some well outside the realm of past experience.
These findings by a non-partisan panel of the nation's leading scientists underscore the urgency of the Senate taking up the bipartisan energy legislation that was co-authored by Senators Graham, Kerry and Lieberman.
With every day that we delay, the problems grow worse, and the solutions become harder.
In a sure sign that the apocalypse is nigh, White Castle is selling a new scented candle.
What better way to celebrate National Hamburger Month than with the aroma of a greasy White Castle burger? With the fast food chain's new scented candle, burger lovers can now enjoy the smell of sliders and onions all day long.
The candle's "steam grilled on a bed of onions" scent was created by Nest Fragrances, and the limited-edition candle comes in a ceramic holder designed to mimic White Castle's hamburger packaging, the fast food chain said this week.
Thank goodness it's the burger scent and not the smell-in-the-closed-car-during-the-drive-home scent.
Virginia's wingnut Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli II, who is apparently unsatisfied with quixotic suits against the federal government, has found a new target for his politically-motivated ire, climate researcher Michael Mann. The Washington Post reports
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II is demanding that the University of Virginia turn over a broad range of documents from a former professor to determine whether he defrauded taxpayers as he sought grants for global warming research.
The civil investigative demand asks for all data and materials presented by former professor Michael Mann when he applied for five research grants from the university. It also gives the school until May 27 to produce all correspondence or e-mails between Mann and 39 other scientists since 1999.
Cuccinelli's short tenure has included several politically-motivated suits and investigations, including suits against the Environmental Protection Agency over its consideration of greenhouse gas regulations and against the new federal health insurance reforms. These and othermisguidedstunts make him a darling of the radical right, though his quixotic efforts should earn him the scorn of Virginia taxpayers.
The investigation of Professor Mann is harrassment, pure and simple. Professor Mann is a respected and accomplished researcher. However, Mann's research a decade ago on the "hockey stick" contributed to the findings U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and put him in the crosshairs for climate change skeptics. Mann's methods and results have been disputed, but the general findings have ultimately been upheld.
Mann has previously been subject to right-wing political scrutiny.
The message from these inquisitions is clear. Researchers, who accept federal funds or work at state-funded institutions, publish politically inconvenient results at their own risk.
The Washington Post reports on yummy consequences of growing carbon emissions.
