Global Warming Day in MA

Three items crossed my desk today related to global warming. The first was the news that Governor Deval Patrick has re-joined Massachusetts into RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Under the agreement, Massachusetts would be given a certain number of carbon dioxide allowances, which the state will then auction off to the highest bidder. Patrick has pledged that the money generated from that would be put toward programs that encouraged energy savings. I'm hopeful that this will help Massachusetts reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and frankly, I think that fears that it will put us at a competitive disadvantage are overblown. All of New England except tiny Rhode Island has signed the same agreement, as have the governors of New York, New Jersey and Delaware. It is now a cost of doing business in the region and anyone who wants to do business in the entire northeast has to contend with these new rules.

Second, there's an article in the Watertown Tab about Doug Plante, who attended training earlier this year to give Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" slideshow. I know Doug from the Deval Patrick campaign here in Watertown -- he was a fellow volunteer. I'm looking forward to seeing him give the presentation locally.

Lastly, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) has sent off a letter to President George W Bush concerning the rumors that the President will include some talk of climate change in his State of the Union address next week. Meehan comes out in support of a federal cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gasses and encourages the President to do likewise.

Read the entire letter inside...

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing following recent media reports announcing your intentions to outline a policy on global warming in your State of the Union Address next week. I believe that climate change is having catastrophic effects on our environment and strongly urge you to develop a policy that adequately addresses this crisis.

I call on you to respect the serious threat that climate change poses to the United States and the World in your State of the Union address, by supporting a federal cap on greenhouse gas emissions. We can not afford to keep any option off the table that could lead to slowing Global Warming.

According to a report in January 17th’s Washington Times, you "will argue that global warming can be better addressed through technology and greater use of renewable energy sources than through caps imposed on businesses and industries." This is a false choice. The United States can continue to invest in innovative new technologies and make greater use of renewable energy sources while also imposing emission standards through a federal cap-and-trade system.

Global Warming is a crisis and the evidence is clear and overwhelming. Last year was the warmest year on record for the continental United States with temperatures over 2 degrees higher than the mean temperature for the 20th century. Your own Interior Department proposed adding polar bears to the list of endangered species because their habitat in the Arctic is literally melting away. More troubling is the growing number of children who are falling victim to the effects of this crisis, whether it is from high asthma rates in urban areas throughout the country, or malaria in Kenya and Tanzania.

While these examples show the devastating effects that climate change is having on our environment and on our well-being, there is still time to act. This time, however, is shrinking; action on this issue must be swift and prompt. Our nation needs a federal policy that aims to reduce carbon emissions, creates incentives for renewable energy, and increases basic research so that our scientists can discover the links between pollution and diseases like autism and breast cancer.

The United States, with only 5% of the world's population, produces roughly onequarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions. This is unacceptable. We must make it a priority to reduce our emissions.

A federal cap-and-trade system has the potential to cut carbon emissions in the United States by 80% by 2050. However, the benefits will go beyond cleaner air and slowed global warming. A federal cap-and-trade program will create new opportunities for businesses and research facilities, specifically those who focus on areas of environment-friendly materials and alternative energy development.

This week, Congress has taken the first step to putting America on a path to energy independence by repealing billions of subsidies given to big oil and investing in renewable energy technologies and improving energy efficiency. I strongly urge you to add to this effort by announcing in your State of the Union Address that you will support a cap on emissions from the country's largest polluters, that you will join with countries from around the world to develop a global agreement on climate change, and that you will increase federal investments in renewable energy and basic research that investigates the links between pollution and life-threatening diseases.

I look forward to continuing to work with you to address this issue which we all agree is having a devastating effect on our environment and our welfare. As the most advanced nation in the world, it is essential that America lead the fight to slow and eventually end global warming.

Sincerely,
Marty Meehan
Member of Congress

Continuing Climate Change Week

Continuing this week's theme of climate change, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) and Dr. Paul Epstein, the associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, have an op-ed in today's Boston Globe. The piece is a condensed version of the speeches that both made at Saturday's town meeting, and is a good overview of the dangers of increased carbon in the atmosphere and the inaction thus far from the federal government in combating it. Towards the end of the article, Meehan outlines the next steps that he hopes the government will be able to enact to combat global climate change:

Instead of silencing government climate experts, the federal government should take a cue from states like Massachusetts and become an active leader and partner in efforts to combat global warming. The president, working with Congress, should raise automotive fuel efficiency standards and increase support for public transportation; promote "green buildings" or green homes, schools and businesses; institute a RGGI-style federal program to cap greenhouse gas emissions and encourage trade and cooperation; eliminate "perverse" subsidies for fossil fuels; and institute significant financial incentives for producers and consumers to adopt energy-efficient and green technologies.

Of course, given the current occupant of the White House, none of the above is likely to happen with help from the federal government in the short term. My hope, though, is that with Democrats in control of Congress, we can at least start to have a long-overdue national conversation on renewable energy and efficiency.

Saturday's Climate Change Town Meeting

On Saturday, I attended a Town Meeting on Global Warming hosted by Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) at UMass Lowell. Around 1000 of us crammed ourselves into an auditorium with only one more Saturday left before Christmas to hear what Bay State leaders and experts had to say on the topic. You can read the Lowell Sun's description of the event, or the one from the Associated Press. Lynne from Left in Lowell was also there, though I don't think she's blogged about it yet.

Meehan told the crowd that a typical car emits about a pound of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per mile. That made me feel a little guilty for making the 25-mile trek each way from Watertown. It reminded me of when my wife and I went to see An Inconvenient Truth because our air conditioner was broken. Meehan's speech cribbed heavily from that film, and he not only played a scene from it, but he got Al Gore himself to shoot a five minute video welcoming us to the event.

One thing that Meehan kept repeating that I thought was interesting was that this should not be a political debate. What debate there is should be a scientific one, and that one has pretty much been decided. In Meehan's words, "the verdict is in." He expressed some optimism that climate change skeptics were no longer in charge of the House and the Senate, but he still expected resistance from the White House.

Following Meehan's remarks was Dr. Paul Epstein from Harvard Medical School, Dr. Ken Geiser and Dr. Amy Cannon from UMass Lowell and Lee Ketelsen from Clean Water Action. The doctors were all heavy on the science, with Epstein reciting a litany of dire consequences should we fail to act to combat global climate change. Geiser and Cannon spoke about the outstanding work on alternative energy that is currently going on at UMass Lowell, particularly in the new field of green chemistry, which I had never heard of before. Ketelsen -- an activist, not a scientist -- gave a political pitch. Rather than preach to the choir, she spoke of the importance of massive citizen pressure to get action from Washington. In order to do that, we need to convince our friends and neighbors that clean energy is not only good for the planet, but it's good for their pocketbook as well.

Deval Patrick spoke after the panel and those familiar with his alternative energy ideas would find his speech familiar. He repeated his desire for Massachusetts to become a center for development of renewable energy because, "if we get that right, the whole world is our customer." He also pledged that he would enter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which Governor Romney had opposed.

By the way, for anyone worried that Patrick has lost any support from activists over the past month, there was no evidence of this in the auditorium. I think he managed to get three standing ovations -- once when he entered the hall, once when he began his speech and once afterwards.

Meehan promised to use his web page as a portal for more information. As of now, the invitation to this event is all that's there. I'm not sure what they have in mind, but at the very least I hope they make the materials from Saturday available online. There was a lot of energy in that room for a Saturday morning, and it would be a shame if it could not be harnessed.

In Case You Haven't Had Enough Water Yet

Now that Al Gore's new movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is in the news and on the blogs and the real-life flood waters have receded, I thought this might be a good time to point out a couple of map tools that show what happens should the sea level rise. There's a fairly detailed tool from the University of Arizona Department of Geosciences that allows you to raise the sea level up to 6 meters with the danger areas highlighted in red. There's also a Google Maps mash-up that lets you drill down even further.

Just for fun, here is the future map of Watertown if the seas rise 14 meters (a mere 45 feet).

For those of you keeping score, at this level, the Charles River comes just about up to my driveway. It's waterfront property at last!

Coastal Watertown?

The always informative folks at Blue Mass Group have a link to a new global warming report commissioned by the EPA, and focused on the impact of climate change in the Greater Boston area. They predict $94 billion dollars in coastal flooding damage here, including emergency services but excluding residual costs like higher cooling bills due to hotter temperatures, lost time due to road and transit flooding, and the obvious cost in human lives.

On the plus side, I have to imagine my house price can only improve in newly coastal Watertown. When you only have less than 1/12th of an acre of land, you've got to wring as much value out of the property as you can.

Seriously, though check out their list of Major Impacts.

Higher sea levels of just 12 inches or more could give a typical 10-year storm the intensity of the present 100-year storm; similarly, a 100-year storm would hit with the intensity of the present 500-year storm
[...]
During and immediately after extreme weather events, motorists could spend an estimated 80% more hours on the road due to traffic delays; likewise, 82% more trips could be cancelled because of road flooding.

Even without taking coastal flooding into account, the increase in storm intensity due to climate change will be really serious for everybody. If you don't think road flooding is a problem now, just wait -- in a decade or so we'll all need hovercrafts just to get down Storrow Drive.

On second thought... Hovercrafts are pretty cool. Do they still make that hairspray with the CFCs? Let's make this happen, people!