Nordic nations demand Trump’s acknowledgement of climate change in Arctic circle


32928721880_e85312a2f4_o
An arctic beach off of the Norwegian sea. (Tony Armstrong/flickr)
Jenna Ladd | May 11, 2017

Representatives from eight Arctic nations will gather in Fairbanks, Alaska today for the 10th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting.

At the meeting, the end of the United States two-year chairmanship of the council will be marked with a final statement summarizing U.S. accomplishments as chair. Officials from Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden have not yet signed off on the statement because they say that the Trump administration deemphasizes climate change and the Paris climate accord in the document. The language of the document must be approved by all parties prior to its presentation for signing.

The other member countries say that President Trump has reversed the commitment that President Obama made to climate issues when the U.S. became chair in 2015. Along with Russia, the current administration has suggested opening up the Arctic to more drilling. The White House is also considering pulling out of the Paris climate pact, which was signed by over 200 nations in 2015.

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden recently made a joint statement pledging to take the lead on climate change and energy policy and firmly backing the Paris accord. At the ministerial meeting’s end, Finland will become head of council.

Although the current administration has taken decisive steps to dismantle climate change policy, David Balton, the State Department’s assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, said, “The U.S. will remain engaged in the work the Arctic Council does on climate change throughout. I am very confident there will be no change in that regard.”

People’s Climate March set for this Saturday


15314270532_8854330732_o
Demonstrators gather at the first People’s Climate March on September 21, 2014 in New York City. (Doug Turetsky, flickr)
Jenna Ladd | April 28, 2017

The People’s Climate March will take place this Saturday, on President Trump’s 100th day in office.

The National Park Service has approved a permit for 50,000 to 100,000 to gather on Washington D.C.’s National Mall to advocate for action on climate change. This march comes exactly one week after the March for Science, but Thanu Yakupitiyage, national communications manager for 350.org said this demonstration has a different focus. In an interview with the Washington Post, she said, “The March for Science was really the response of scientists who felt that there was really an assault on rationality and science. This is really more of a community response.”

The first People’s Climate March was held in September of 2014 when over 400,000 people marched through New York City on the day before the UN Climate Summit. Ever year since then, the People’s Climate Movement has organized multiple demonstrations that “Prioritize leadership of front-line communities, communities of color, low-income communities, workers and others impacted by climate, economic and racial inequity.”

While the main event will take place in the nation’s capital, hundreds of other demonstrations are expected to take place around the U.S. Iowa City will host its march titled, “Unifying to Protect Life on Earth” on Saturday, April 29 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm. Protesters will meet on the North side of the Sheraton Hotel in the pedestrian mall to “march together for rational military spending, social justice, a living wage, and an ecosystem that flourishes,” according to the event’s webpage.

Another march will be held at the Iowa State Capitol on Saturday from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm. The Des Moines event is sponsored by a diverse group of organizations including the Sierra Club, Indigenous Iowa, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Interfaith Green Coalition and the Citizens Climate Lobby, among others.

The massive climate-action demonstration will take place just three days after President Trump issued an executive order to reevaluate the status of nationally protected lands, possibly freeing them up to drilling for fossil fuels and other types of resource extraction.

Fighting climate change could benefit the economy


23747830545_55acd92324_h
The closing ceremony of COP21 in Paris featuring Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (second left); Christiana Figueres (left), Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); Laurent Fabius (second right), Minister for Foreign Affairs of France and President of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21) and François Hollande (right), President of France. (United Nations/flickr)
Jenna Ladd | January 13, 2017

A statement from the White House on Thursday outlined the relationship between climate change policy and economics.

The authors of the report, Senior Advisor Brian Deese and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jason Furman, point out that carbon pollution steadily decreased while the U.S. economy continued to improve from 2008-2015. During those years, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. dropped by 9.5 percent while the economy grew by 10 percent.

These trends defy an old reality: increased carbon emissions means increased economic output.

Research from the International Energy Agency demonstrate that the same is true on an international scale. For example, although carbon dioxide emissions stayed the same in 2014 and 2015, the global economy grew.

The statement said that the international community took an important step in combating climate change when the Paris Agreement took effect in 2015. However, the report notes, “But Paris alone is not enough to avoid average global surface temperature increases that climate scientists say are very risky — additional policies that reduce CO2 emissions are needed, in the United States and elsewhere, to ensure that these damages are avoided.”

Failure to address climate change with meaningful policy is costly over time. The report expresses the estimated annual economic damages due to climate change as a fraction of the global gross domestic product from 2050 through 2100. “Climate damage cost” can be thought of as what all nations can expect to pay per year in terms of economic output due of the changing climate. These costs include sea level rise, illness and death related to heat, pollution, tropical diseases, and the effects of rising temperatures on agricultural productivity.

Climate Change Damage Estimates.png
Figure 1. Climate Change is Costly; Serious Climate Policy is a Bargain, The White House

Figure 1 does not include those effects of climate change that are difficult to quantify, such as the increasing  frequency and intensity of extreme weather. The statement said, “Failing to make investments in climate change mitigation could leave the global economy, and the U.S. economy, worse off in the future.”

The report ended with a warning:

“In deciding how much to reduce carbon pollution, and how quickly to act, countries must weigh the costs of policy action against estimates of avoided climate damages. But we should be clear-eyed about the fact that effective action is possible, and that the economic and fiscal costs of inaction are steep.”

Candidates ignore climate change in policy debates


Photo by World Economic Forum

Jon Huntsman threw himself into the GOP race for the presidential nomination today – a race that is becoming less and less concerned with environmental issues.

National Public Radio reports:

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman formally kicks off his presidential campaign Tuesday, with New York’s Statue of Liberty as a backdrop. He’s hoping some tired and poor Republicans are yearning for a different kind of candidate. Huntsman holds moderate views on immigration and same-sex civil unions, and he wasn’t afraid to serve in the Obama administration, as U.S. ambassador to China.

As governor, Huntsman was also a leader in a regional effort to control greenhouse gases, by capping carbon emissions and trading pollution permits.

“Until we put a value on carbon, we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change,” Huntsman said during a 2008 gubernatorial debate.

Since then, the political climate has changed.

“Our economy’s in a different place,” Huntsman told Time magazine last month. “The bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment” to pursue cap and trade. Continue reading