Coastal Climate Extension

In President-elect Obama’s recorded address to the Governors’ Global Climate Summit, hosted Nov. 18-19 by California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, Obama lays out the climate change issues he plans on addressing in the new presidential administration. There are two main ideas that he stresses:

1. A new federal carbon dioxide (CO₂) cap and trade system, with the goal of reducing our emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and by an additional 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and
2. An annual $15 billion in investments to the private sector to support innovation in clean energy technologies. Here, “clean energy” examples are solar and wind power, next-generation biofuels, new (but safer) nuclear power, and clean coal.

So these are two issues that you’ll see a lot more of in the news. Currently, the cap-and-trade system isn’t getting much attention, because it’s being pushed aside by staffing and economic news and such. But when it comes up again, expect a debate between those who support cap-and-trade, those who favor a carbon tax, and those who believe that any action at all is too expensive. For now, the net-worth-of-$60-billion-over-4-years gorilla in the room is the idea of whether “green” spending can boost the economy. This weekend, I saw quite a few articles on a “Green New Deal” and what it would be capable of doing in terms of providing jobs and improving infrastructure efficiency. I honestly don’t know the answer – but I don’t think anyone does, which is why it will get more attention in the coming months. As a good consumer of climate information, there are a few things you should look for once the debate starts:

• Defining energy and environmental issues – what is good for energy production is not always effective in reducing the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that are speeding up climate change (for example, it takes a lot of coal-based electricity to produce corn-based biodiesel… so it’s a non-fossil fuel source that’s not doing a lot to reduce harmful impacts to the atmosphere). A lot of articles fail to make this distinction.
• Greenwashing – the practice of advertising something as being more environmentally friendly than it really is. When something (a practice like cap-and-trade, or a product like the “green” napkins my husband brought home this weekend) gets advertised as being good for the environment, ask yourself: am I really reducing greenhouse gas emissions by buying this? Or is it a clever ploy to give me warm fuzzies when I toss it on the checkout counter?
• Political spin – like it or not, climate is a political issue. When someone is pushing a particular environmental practice or fighting against an environmental initiative, you do, alas, have to think about their motivations. To separate emotion from good science, look for proof of claims from reputable scientists who carefully and systematically analyzed the data (and even then, question what statistical methods they use). If you have questions, you can always contact your climate extension specialist.

When I took on the climate extension job I thought I’d avoid the whole climate-politics problem and focus on the climate science and climatology aspects of the work. Since then, I’ve had my first encounters with global warming “skeptics,” and answered some questions more to their satisfaction than others. As I meet people – in schools, at the S.C. Aquarium, at symposia – I’m also getting asked about what individuals can do to reduce climate change. So I suppose there’s no way of avoiding it (and the fact that people are interested is encouraging). By approaching these political issues through the lens of calm, rational analysis, we can at least understand some of the scientific and human issues that will surround climate and climate change in the next few years. The winds of change are blowing in Washington. The question is whether those winds will have fewer CO₂ particles. And one of the biggest things you can do to help that happen is to stay informed.