Weekly Angst

A few degrees would change the world, study says
It’s hard to comprehend how a couple of degrees increase in temperature could make such a big difference. Most of us can’t tell, for example, if it’s 52 or 55 degrees out. So why is it so alarming that the Earth’s average temperature has risen 1 degree in the past century. Well part of the problem is the Earth heats unevenly, and much more so at the poles, where ice is melting rapidly. Another concern is that most of the warming occurred in the past three decades, suggesting an acceleration of climate change. Already 1,700 animal and plant species have been observed migrating toward the poles at a speed of 4 miles per decade as the weather changes. They know something’s happening.

A recent study out of Tufts University lays out three scenarios, and shows what we can expect, depending on how quickly and completely we take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Without strong action now
Without immediate and vigorous efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the average global temperature will rise an additional 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the study says. That will be an all-time high for the past million years. Such an increase will result in:
• Decreased crop yields and widespread hunger in the developing countries,
• Serious water shortages,
• A total loss of Arctic ice and extinction of Arctic animals,
• A near total loss of coral reefs, and
• Possibly the onset of the complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, slowly and unstoppably raising sea levels nearly 23 feet over the next 3000 years.

With major efforts
If, instead, the temperature jumps 3.6 degrees F, which is “extremely likely” without major efforts to reduce emissions, according to the study, we can expect:
• Decreasing crop yields in the developed world, resulting in widespread hunger,
• The wholesale collapse of the Amazon ecosystem,
• Widespread desertification and species extinctions,
• The complete loss of northern temperate and alpine ecosystems.

If we do nothing
With no efforts at all to reduce emissions, the temperature could well increase 5.4 degrees F by 2100, resulting in:
• Entire regions with no agricultural production,
• The melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet, gradually increasing sea levels an additional 16-20 feet.
To read the entire study, “Climate Change – The Costs of Inaction,” by Frank Ackerman and Elizabeth Stanton, go to
www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Climate-CostsofInaction.pdf
(You will note the temperatures in the study are stated in Celsius for a European audience. Google can point you to a good converter, which I used to switch those numbers into Fahrenheit, which we Americans are more used to.)

News update

1. McCain says he’ll push for caps on GHG emissions
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told an audience at Duke University Thursday that he would push for a vote on Global Warming legislation in January. He said he and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will reintroduce their bill to cap greenhouse gases and set up a market-based trade system to buy and sell credits. The bill got 43 votes in 2003 and 38 in 2005. It includes a provision to encourage more nuclear power, which some – including California Sen. Barbara Boxer, new chair of the Environment Committee – found objectionable. McCain said he sees nuclear power as important to any a short-term solution. He noted 80% of France’s electricity is nuclear. McCain predicted President Bush would sign a bill capping greenhouse gases before his term ends. (Source: Environment & Energy Daily)

2. Senators ask Bush to work with them on climate change
Three Senate leaders wrote President Bush this week, urging him to work with them next year on climate legislation to cap greenhouse gases. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the U.S. must quickly adopt economy-wide restraints and then work with the international community to forge an effective global agreement. They reminded the president the Senate voted 53-44 in 2005 to support mandatory GHG limits in theory, so long as any plan protected the U.S. economy and involved the international community. A White House spokesman said Bush is open to talks but “already has in place an aggressive climate change strategy that is realizing results.” (Source: Environment & Energy Daily)

3. Will the new Congress fund re-opening of EPA libraries?
EPA workers, who no longer have access to many important files and papers, are hopeful the new Congress will get them their libraries back. This summer, the EPA started closing most of its research libraries, both to the public and to staff. The move was explained as a response to a $2 billion cut in the proposed $8 billion budget. Employees wrote Congress in protest, saying, “We believe this is just one of many Bush administration initiatives to reduce the effectiveness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to continue to demoralize its employees.” Shortly before the election, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asked the Senate Appropriations Committee to restore access to the libraries. (Source: Truthout.com)

4. Aussie Prime Minister shifts position on Global Warming
Prime Minister John Howard told a business group last week that scientific evidence suggests significant damage from greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian government needs to address the problem. Australia and the U.S. have been the only industrialized nations not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Howard is now taking the offensive politically. He will push clean-coal technology and nuclear power and will campaign to limit emissions but not damage his country’s coal and gas industries. He wants a new emissions-trading system for the post-Kyoto period after 2012 and appointed a government-business task force to come up with a model that suits the needs of Australia and the Asia-Pacific world. (Source: The Australian)

5. The top 10 fuel-efficient cars
The U.S. EPA and Dept. of Energy have released their list of the most and least efficient models for 2007. The top ones are:
1) Toyota Prius (hybrid) 60 city/51 highway
2) Honda Civic Hybrid 49/51
3) Toyota Camry Hybrid 40/38
4) Ford Escape Hybrid FWD 36/31
5) Toyota Yaris (manual) 34/40
6) Toyota Yaris (automatic) 34/39
7) Honda Fit (manual) 33/38
8) Toyota Corolla (manual) 32/41
9) Hyundai Accent (manual) and Kia Rio tied at 32/35
10)Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner, both Hybrid 4WD 32/29
For information on the least fuel-efficient cars, as well as the highest and lowest in each class, see www.epa.gov/fueleconomy

Do something

Having trouble finding a fuel-efficient car?
What we drive significantly affects global warming. In Illinois, for example, 37% of the carbon dioxide emissions come from cars and trucks. There is a place where those looking for a “greener” car can go to get this information. At www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/select.htm you can plug in any make and model and learn what the official gas mileage is for both city and highway driving for the new 2007 models. Use it for comparison, but be aware that the tests on which these numbers are based will be adjusted next year to reflect real-life, rather than ideal, driving conditions. In other words, the numbers now are inflated.

The EPA and DOE note on their Web site that aggressive driving (rapid acceleration, speeding and braking) can lower miles per gallon as much as 33% on the highway and 5% in the city (and these are things they will take into account when revising criteria for fuel efficiency next year). Gas mileage drops rapidly over 60 mph. And don’t let your car idle. When you do you’re going zero mpg. Keep tires properly inflated, use air conditioning sparingly and change filters regularly to increase fuel efficiency.