Frankly, I’m a little disillusioned. Plants are supposed to be wired with a certain sobriety; resisting the lure of this year’s March heat, surely they’d only go so far. But what I’ve seen this spring in a number of trees, shrubs and flowers I thought I knew – from seed in some cases – is a complete lack of moderation. And what a new study relays is that these plants may not be the reliable, slow-to-change backdrop we once thought, but a far more temptable lot.

Quite contrary, that’s how my garden grows

Out my back door, the landscape is a gorgeous muddle. A few things, like forsythia and redbud, bloomed at their usual time. Others, like magnolias, fruit trees, lilacs and rhododendrons are weeks ahead of schedule. On May Day my pear tree was sporting fruit! It reminded me of my “tween” daughter asking to wear dangly earrings – I’ll admit, they look pretty good, but it’s just too soon.

When “Lilac Sunday” started in Boston 90 years ago, it was held close to June 1; these days it’s mid-May. But this year, common lilacs (these from my yard) were turning brown before their typical first bloom date.

If you pay attention to these things in your landscape, if you expect them to do what they’ve always done, then this spring is seriously disorienting. It’s like watching a school play gone awry, when the otherwise darling actors keep coming onstage in the wrong order, overlapping their lines, making it impossible to follow along. Individually, they’re precious, but could someone make them stop?

We know this year’s record-smashing March heat prompted lots of plants to kick into their spring growth mode very early. And with last month’s temperature data in, it’s clear that April egged them on. According to the National Climate Data Center, this April was the third warmest on record for the U.S., with above average temperatures across large swaths. And while this year has been dramatic so far, it’s not an isolated blip, but part of a larger trend (see map).

Here in Massachusetts, the Arnold Arboretum hosts “Lilac Sunday” each May. This year they added a disclaimer to the event, recognizing the main attraction would have passed its peak by then. Lilacs are a poster child for spring; their bloom time is widely seen as a key spring indicator and has long been tracked. Studies have documented how, in recent decades, the flowering time of lilacs has shifted earlier in the season – a total of roughly 4 days earlier here in the Northeast. But three weeks earlier than normal? This is what’s so eye opening for me about this spring: seeing how dramatically plants can respond when weather conditions give them unusual cues.

“Spring Creep”: Still Creepy, Not Creeping

For this particular gardener, trying to go about my normal spring yard work surrounded by all this misbehaving vegetation, that new study on plant phenology (when in the year they do what they do) provided some useful explanation. Based on extensive real-world observations, the response of plants to warmer temperatures appears to be a lot stronger than indicated by the many previous controlled experiments (the results of which have been used extensively to drive ecosystem models and inform planning). In the real world, plants are apparently blooming and leafing out 5 to 6 days earlier per degree Celsius increase in local annual temperature, versus roughly a day or two earlier in the laboratory.

In the U.S., few April high temperature records remain from the 20th century; most have been broken since 2000. Source: NOAA

In my garden, this is illuminating; I can hope my leafy party-goers sober up later in the season with no ill effects, and I can stop standing around looking puzzled in my gloves and rubber boots. In the wider world, it’s troubling. So far, we’ve witnessed about 1.5 degrees F (0.75 degrees C) of warming, globally, but many regional temperature increases have been even higher. We’ve already committed ourselves, globally, to about another degree F (0.6 degree C) of warming given past emissions and, at the moment, we’re on track to drive temperatures dangerously higher this century. If the responsiveness of plants – the foundation of ecosystems – to higher local temperatures is greater than we realized, and if many of the tools we’ve been using to plan for ecosystem change may be poorly suited to the task, then we have some catch-up to do.

We could start here: no more spiking the climate punch if we don’t want the natural world getting unruly.

My fascination with space

As a kid I grew up with the Space Shuttle. This ranged from highs, such as classroom shuttle launches and dreams of Space Camp (based in part on the movie) to lows such as the Challenger disaster. This was brought in to particular focus as one of our favorite teachers went through the Teacher in Space competition that ultimately went to Christa McAullife. Our small elementary school followed the events very closely, including watching that fateful flight on a classroom TV in 1986. Despite that event, lots of science fiction and an old telescope kept my interest on the skies and beyond.

It was, ironically, when I formalized my interest in science by attending graduate school that I lost sight of the utility in studying what lies beyond our planet. My feeling, at the time, was that there were plenty of pressing and interesting problems on our own home world that deserved our attention and resources. I quickly realized the error in this, again perhaps ironically, when I tried to explain why my rather esoteric research should be of concern to my non-scientist parents. It was then that someone, possibly my PhD advisor, said something along the lines of, “Scientific knowledge is like a vast ocean. The research we’re doing may represent only small buckets into this ocean and we have no idea when or where someone may withdraw our contribution. But it’s enough knowing we’re adding to it and making it available.”  Again in the world of limited resources it may not be defensible to make the scientific endeavor that idealistic, but I got the point.

The Hubble space telescope arrives

The Hubble Deep Field image showing thousands of galaxies and looking back to the time just after the Big Bang. How many galaxies can you count? Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Teamhe

It was also around this time the Hubble space telescope began releasing truly incredible images of space that got my scientific wonder going full speed again and likely others’ as well. The one that leaves me in awe is the Hubble ultra deep field image. The image represents about one-thirteen millionth of the area of the entire sky, contains around 10,000 galaxies and looks back in time to the point just after the Big Bang and initial galaxy formation. But it’s not just about pretty pictures. Over 10,000 scientific journal articles have been published using Hubble data. And in the true spirit of open science virtually anyone can apply for time on Hubble. Just don’t hold your breath on getting it.

Science in (or from) space provides great value to my personal work and that of UCS.

This comes from a wide range of observations of the Earth system from satellites. Satellites provide information that is unique in that they can conduct global measurements in relatively short amounts of time and with repetition over their multiyear lifespans (the satellite passes over a given area on a highly regular basis over and over). In a previous life, some of my work involved the Aura satellite, which is part of a larger series of satellites known as the A-Train.

Aura measures various aspects of atmospheric chemistry. Very high in the atmosphere it measures how the stratospheric ozone hole is changing. Much closer to the surface, it tracks atmospheric pollutants and air quality with public health impacts and how changing chemistry in the atmosphere affects climate. Other satellites provide information on the global water cycle, properties of clouds, the amount of solar radiation Earth receives, changes in land use, and many others. Two of the most interesting, in my opinion, are the GRACE satellites that measure changes in Earth’s gravitational field. This is done by accurately measuring the distance between two satellites that depends on the underlying gravitational field. Among other applications this has been used to measure ice loss in Greenland and of perhaps more immediate concern depletion of groundwater basins.

Artist's depiction of the A-Train series of satellites. Some satellites carry multiple instruments. The approximate viewing areas of the instruments are shown. Credit: NASA

One very important aspect of obtaining long-term satellite data important for climate trends is ensuring that the older satellite and its replacement are both in orbit at the same time, so any offsets or discrepancies between the two can be accounted for. The overlapping measurements ensure that the data record can be extended with the new satellite.  Continued funding for these satellites then becomes critical, but recent news is not promising.  This is problematic for not only the existing satellite fleet and potential replacements, but also for satellites providing new types of measurements such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which would produce a global map of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide and how they change over time with a high degree of accuracy.  Delays are already happening with this, however.

Science from space is costly and not without some failure (for instance, see the original OCO satellite). But investing in it not only is investing in the scientific endeavor and the vast amount of information and breakthroughs that can provide. It is also a pathway via a spectacular image or two to a sense of wonderment not only about our universe (or multiverse depending on your perspective), but maybe more importantly to a renewed sense of wonderment about our own planet. At least that is the case for me.

Decoding the Forest Code

The Amazon Rainforest is the largest contiguous tropical forest on the planet but current changes to the Brazilian forest code threaten its ecological stability. (Ohto: Filckr/ CIFOR)

The Forest Code, which has been on the books since 1934, mandates that private land holders within the Amazon must leave at least 50% of the forests intact. The law also stipulates buffer zones along watersheds, and forbids clearing on steep slopes. While the code hasn’t always been strongly enforced, beginning in the 2000’s the federal government began strengthening its enforcement of the law.

In late 2010, the powerful Ruralista block of legislators, supported by large commercial interests, proposed a bill that would lower the amount of area landowners are required to conserve. Even more damaging, the changes would allow amnesty for those who have already violated the law.  After two years of back and forth with the Brazilian congress the bill was finally passed and sent to the president on May 7. Although Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff vowed to veto any bill which contains amnesty during her campaign, her veto is now by no means a sure thing.

Silenced Science
While the existing Forest Code, was based on the best available science at the time, these current amendments were passed without any input from scientists. The Brazilian Academy of Sciences (ABC) and the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC)  (think NAS and AAAS) highlighted this in their report, “The Forestry Code and Science: Contributions for Dialogue.”

As they point out, science indicates that such drastic revisions of the code are unnecessary and harmful. Countless studies demonstrate the ecological, meteorological, and climatic advantages of conserving Brazil’s natural ecosystems. Additionally, some evidence indicates that extensive clearing of the Amazon could dramatically reduce the rainfall and pollinator populations that are necessary to maintain Brazil as an agricultural powerhouse. Further, recent advances in agricultural technology means there are a number of steps Brazil can take to increase agricultural production without expanding onto new land.

There has been an outcry from the international science community as well. The Society for Conservation Biology and The Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation released resolutions opposing revisions to the code, but like the other report, these calls were not heeded. Now that the law has passed, groups of scientists and environmental lawyers are calling for President Rousseff to veto the law. A number of groups have also started an online petition calling for a veto, which has already been signed by more than 1.5 million people.

A Necessary Veto
There is no scientific basis for the current revisions to the forest code, and much risk. Brazil is a global leader on reducing carbon emissions (driven by a major reduction in deforestation over the last 6 years), and will soon host the United Nations conference on sustainable development. With the eyes of the world turning to Brazil for environmental leadership, President Rousseff should heed the warnings of thousands of Brazilian and international scientists, uphold her campaign promise, and veto the amendments.

More than 500,000 supportive comments on the new standards were hand-delivered to the EPA.

I am inspired by the voices and actions of hundreds of thousands of people around the country supporting the first-ever national standards to limit global warming emissions from new power plants. Just last week, more than 500,000 supportive comments on the new standards were hand delivered to the EPA. And that’s just the beginning. On May 24, public hearings on the standards will take place in Chicago, IL and Washington, DC. UCS will be there, along with scientists, health experts, economists, concerned citizens, faith leaders and many others testifying on the importance of reducing emissions and showing support for this first round of standards.

Last Thursday, UCS hosted a national conference call with speakers from the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussing the draft standards to limit carbon pollution from new power plants—a historic step toward a cleaner, healthier energy future—and talking about how we can all get involved in calling for action.

We were honored to have on the call Heather Zichal, the deputy assistant to President Obama for energy and climate change, and Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. McCarthy shared more details and her insight on the new carbon standards and encouraged scientists and citizens alike to engage and submit comments on the draft carbon pollution standards for new power plants – standards she noted are a signal to the world that the U.S. is committed to addressing climate change. Ms. Zichal spoke about the significant progress on environmental and energy issues the Administration has been able to do working together with members of the public. She also noted the importance of staying engaged on these issues in order to take advantage of opportunities to go further and do better in the future.

The EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standards demonstrate that the Obama administration is taking prudent action to address the dangers of unchecked climate change that an overwhelming majority of scientists have been warning us about for years.

With groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowing to do everything they can to stop the EPA’s efforts to protect our health and environment from the impacts of climate change, in order to make these standards a success and lay the groundwork for continued national efforts, the EPA and White House need to know there is public support for action. This is where you come in. With this momentum and excitement, we can make these first standards a reality and get ready for the next round of standards that will limit emissions from existing power plants.

What can you do today? The public comment period is open until June 25th. If you haven’t already, submit your comment to the EPA! If you have already submitted a comment, spread the word and contribute to a record number of comments into the EPA.

Photo: A Baked Creation www.abakedcreation.com

You may have heard that EPA recently issued draft carbon standards for new power plants. These standards are a small, important step toward lowering our future carbon emissions. (Yes, we clearly need to do a lot more to truly address the threat of climate change – both by sharply reducing our emissions and by building resilience to the impacts of climate change already underway.)

But even these reasonable, commonsense standards are coming under mounting attack from the usual suspects.

The Chamber of Commerce campaign of falsehoods and misinformation on climate

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s press release on the carbon standard is a particularly egregious example of misinformation and scare tactics. First of all, it’s important to note that this standard only applies to new power plants (and also exempts plants that are already permitted and will begin construction within a year). And it’s a fallacy to say that the standard is preventing the building of new coal-fired power plants because, apart from a few plants already in the pipeline, no one is planning to build any more new coal plants! According to EIA’s most recent projections (see Data Table A9), even under a business-as-usual scenario virtually no new conventional coal-fired plants are forecast to be built through 2035.

The fact is coal-fired power plants are becoming increasingly uneconomic for a variety of reasons including competition from lower cost alternatives like natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Add to that the enormous health and environmental costs of coal, and it’s clear that we need to diversify our energy base with cleaner, more sustainable options.

Contrary to what the Chamber claims, EPA’s legal authority and obligation to regulate carbon pollution has been clearly affirmed though a 2007 Supreme Court ruling and the issuing of the endangerment finding which establishes the threats to public health and welfare from climate change.

Several economists have confirmed that this standard will have little or no impact on electricity prices. Market conditions are clearly unfavorable for building new coal plants and any new investments are likely to be in natural gas or renewable energy.

The Chamber is out of step with its members on climate

Instead of embracing a future of cleaner energy sources that also help limit the growth in carbon emissions that are fueling climate change, the Chamber has chosen to adopt a short-sighted stance. The Chamber has a history of this kind of head-in-the-sand thinking on climate issues, which has already led to the exodus of members like Apple, Exelon and PG&E who recognize the need to acknowledge the science and take action on climate change. Many others (including Nike, General Electric and Johnson and Johnson) have explicitly said that the Chamber does not represent their views on climate change.

Show your support for limits on global warming emissions  

You can make a difference: Please send comments to EPA in support of these critical standards that will help protect our health and environment from the impacts of global warming. Moms (and responsible adults) everywhere would approve!

Disinformation = disservice

Some of what the memo lays out is consistent with smart campaign strategizing. And who can argue with moving to “encourage critical thinking from members and the public” or to “develop a list of experts for testimony to government agencies, etc”?

But other aspects should give readers pause about the intentions and modus operandi of the proponents of these types of efforts, or even what the memo means by the phrases above. Some choice morsels from the menu of goals, strategies, and tactics:

“Setup [sic] a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards.”

One commenter has already pointed out the unfortunate reference to billboards, in the wake of last week’s tragicomical Heartland Institute billboard fiasco.

Photo by Wes Gibson (iStockphoto)

But it’s the “dummy business” stuff that gets my goat.  It’s way too consistent with the documented strategy and long history of anti-climate science folks funding organizations to sow confusion. UCS documented ExxonMobil’s efforts along those lines several years ago—in that case, pointing out how they had created “a vast ‘echo chamber’ that repeats the same disinformation about global warming but gives the appearance of widespread debate among experts.”  Many of the organizations mentioned in the recent memo as having “substantial commonality” with the proposed effort were ones named in the UCS report, or their intellectual heirs.  And more recent indications show that those of their ilk haven’t given up.

“Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages.”

What got me about that piece was the last part.  I would think all of us should want any mind-changing to be based on free will plus an understanding of costs and benefits, of causes and consequences, of options and impacts.  To depend on an understanding of the science, not on the catchiness of the phraseology that Madison Avenue or pollsters cook up.

“Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a ‘groundswell’ among grass roots.”

“Appear as a ‘groundswell’ ”? Shouldn’t successful grassroots movements actually be groundswells? “Appear” can mean different things, but in light of other pieces of the memo and tactics employed against renewable energy and climate science, this suggests the goal is a plausible parade of Potemkin people instead of genuine public reaction (see astroturf).

Which brings us back to the first phrases I mentioned.  What do all these pieces say about the truthiness that should underpin the critical thinking the memo professes to want to encourage, or the nature of the “experts” that this effort would have proposed to engage?

Science rules

The most (unintentionally) ironic piece of the memo may be the suggestion to “Provide alternative solutions for public consumption.” They’re talking about messages, but the phrase fits the energy context to a T.  Because that’s what renewable energy is about—meeting our electricity needs (public consumption) in a way that’s different from fossil fuels or nuclear power (alternative solutions). Different because those energy sources give us options that don’t alter our climate, and don’t pollute the water we depend on or the air we breathe. Different because renewables make use of resources that are inexhaustible or grow back. Different because of the control they give us over our energy destiny.

No technology—wind included—should be up on a high pedestal, unassailable by facts or logic.  Rational people can and do disagree about what should matter when it comes to our energy choices, about how to value the trade-offs.  But those discussions can and should be grounded in an understanding of the facts as best as they can be determined, not in some fantasy constructed by over-zealous opponents or proponents.

As the UCS website says,

Our energy choices have direct impacts on our health, environment, and economy. No energy technology is perfect, but science helps us assess the options and make smarter decisions.

Science rules… or should.

As part of the book’s release, my co-authors and I have blogged the past few weeks about the most effective steps people can take to reduce their personal carbon emissions 20 percent this year. And while individual consumer decisions can lead to meaningful progress in combating global warming, government policies and programs are essential for overcoming the entrenched market barriers that currently impede our progress. A single community, state, or federal clean-energy policy can lock in enormous reductions in carbon emissions, far beyond what any of us can hope to accomplish on our own.

That’s why it is so important to not only take charge of your personal carbon emissions, but also to get involved in formulating and implementing government policies on energy use and global warming. By becoming a low-carbon leader, you can increase your impact many thousands of times over.

Taking Charge in Cincinnati

Solar PV installation at Cincinnati zoo (Source: SolarWorld)

The effort in Cincinnati offers a great example. Groups there, such as Ohio Citizen Action, began working with local residents to convince the city council to allow a ballot measure last November creating a program that allowed the city to buy electricity in bulk. That way, Cincinnati could negotiate lower power costs and influence the source of the electricity in the process. Voters approved the new system, but the City Manager’s decision to go with a 100 percent renewable energy provider came after a series of public hearings where residents and business owners voiced strong support for a cleaner, more sustainable power supply.

The important point is this: the actions of one local group of committed low carbon leaders created a policy that will now allow up to 52,000 homes and small businesses to be powered by renewable energy at a savings of about $133 for the average household. Now, that is what we mean by being cooler and smarter!

Opportunities For Action

Cincinnati offers a great case of one city taking action, but there are many exciting opportunities to advance clean energy policies at the state and federal level too. For example, many states have adopted renewable electricity standards (RES) that require utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable power sources by a specific date. Since the late 1990s, clean energy groups across the country have worked with state legislators to pass these standards, and today 29 states have mandatory programs. By requiring a clear and firm target date, this bipartisan and market-friendly policy offers certainty to investors and developers of renewables while helping utilities move away from older, carbon-intensive sources of energy. Vocal support from citizens to our elected officials is critical for adopting new state RES policies as well as defending and strengthening existing ones.

Federal tax credits for wind power are set to expire at the end of the year. (Source: Todd Spink, NREL)

On the federal level, citizen action can make a big difference too. One important job right now is the need for vocal support for tax incentives to speed the development of more clean renewable sources of energy. One of the primary drivers of the growth in zero-carbon wind energy, for instance, is something called the production tax credit, a federal policy that gives developers a tax break when they generate renewable energy. Tax credits help defray the upfront costs of installing renewable energy technologies and help level the playing field with fossil fuel and nuclear technologies, which historically have received much greater tax subsidies. Unfortunately, the federal tax credit for wind power is set to expire at the end of the year. Here again, low carbon citizen leaders can make the difference. Contact your members of congress today and urge them to support permanent, aggressive tax incentives to speed the development of more renewable generating capacity.

Cooler Smarter shows how each of our individual actions and choices can make a difference in driving down carbon emissions. But we can’t stop there. We need more citizens like those in Cincinnati to become low carbon leaders and help push government action along too. Only then can we be truly successful in making the transition to a low-carbon society.

In public talks about climate science, my colleague, Peter Frumhoff and I often show images of the projected rapid increase in global emissions of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas.

A century separates these two mothers with their young children. Left photo by G.M. Ekwurzel, right photo source www.mass.gov.

Industrialized nations have been responsible for the lion’s share of heat-trapping emissions to the atmosphere. Now, most of the projected growth in emissions is in countries with emerging economies, with fastest rates of growth expected in India, Brazil and China. And when we talk about the options for reducing emissions, we’re often asked, “If we want to solve the climate problem, shouldn’t we really be focusing on reducing population growth?” We want to share with you some of our thoughts about this.

Growth in carbon dioxide emissions are projected to be much higher in new regions compared to countries that contributed the most historically. The OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Its members include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the U.K., and the U.S. Figure source: Energy Information Agency at the U.S. Department of Energy.

The images juxtaposed above convey one aspect of this topic. On the left is my great grandmother with my grandfather in a stroller near the start of the twentieth century, on the right an image of a mother adjusting her child’s  car seat in the twenty-first century. These are both American images. The lifestyles of these two mothers and their children are poles apart with very different consequences for emissions (see figure below for carbon dioxide emissions over time in the U.S.).

Today, the per capita heat-trapping emissions of Americans have grown to one of the highest in the world. Much of the opportunity for reducing emissions comes from changing the way we power U.S. and other industrial economies, so that emissions per person in developed countries becomes lower, even as we further improve quality of life.

Let’s take a quick look at 5 things to know about the links between population growth and heat-trapping emissions that warm our planet.

According to the United Nations Population Division, the world population has continued to grow, but the growth rate peaked back between 1965 and 1970. Image source: Association for the Advancement of Science (atlas.aaas.org).

1. World Population is Still Growing, But at a Declining Rate.

There are more than 7 billion people on the planet today. By mid-century, population is projected to grow by another 1 to 3 billion people. By 2100, mid-range projections of fertility are around 10 billion people with significant uncertainty depending primarily on future fertility rates. These are oft-cited, well-known statistics and projections. What is often surprising to many is that the rate of population growth is declining from a peak of around 2.1 percent per year between 1965 and 1970. Global average growth rates have dropped ever since. Not all locations or nations follow this average trend (more on that later).

Emissions of carbon dioxide per person in the United States and China over time. Data source is Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Visualization from Gapminder World, powered by Trendalyzer from www.gapminder.org.

2.  When it Comes to Reducing Future Heat-Trapping Emissions, Population Composition and Size Both Matter

It is not just a matter of how many births but where those births are occurring and where people are moving to live with consequent implications for future emissions of heat-trapping gases. Compared to 1970 when most people lived in rural settings, more of us are living in cities and that trend is only expected to continue.  Urbanization has been long recognized by demographers and has implications for how people use energy, but until recently has not been fully incorporated into climate projections.

Recent research by Brian O’Neill and colleagues incorporates into model projections the influence that urbanization, as well the number of people per household and the age of household members  have on future heat-trapping emissions. Urbanization tends to increase emissions and emerging economies experiencing rapid urbanization with a highly productive work force is a growing regional driver of emissions. Older or smaller households have characteristically different consumption patterns than do younger or larger ones, for example, and these in turn affect the overall emissions of an ageing population. Especially in historically industrialized nations, the ageing population reduces the proportion of the population in the labor force  and tends to decrease emissions in these countries. On a global scale urbanization and age structure tend to offset each other, but locally these are important drivers in the changing share of emissions among countries. Taking account of these factors, and incorporating assumptions of economic growth used by the IPCC in their scenarios of future emissions, O’Neill and colleagues looked carefully at what reductions in emissions might result from different population growth scenarios and from a more detailed assessment of changes in population composition.

Over half the world’s population lives in an urban setting today compared with around 30 percent in 1950. Data Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unup. Photo by B. Ekwurzel

The bottom line: Under medium IPCC emissions path known as “B2,” emissions could be reduced by about 1.4 gigatons of carbon per year by 2050 under a “low” rather than “medium” population growth scenario. And population composition factors are projected to have a significant effect regionally: for example, when properly accounting for urbanization trends in the developing world, emissions tend to be higher than previous models have indicated (this is due mostly to shifts in labor force to more energy intensive activities); for the industrialized world, population aging tends to dampen emissions, as a greater proportion of the population exits the labor force. 1.4 gigatons carbon per year is a lot – roughly equivalent to net annual tropical forest emissions (based on 2011 estimates for tropical deforestation and degradation and uptake).

The climate and societal consequences of slowing population growth depends on how population growth reduces. Fertility rates often decline with economic growth – people with higher incomes tend to have fewer kids – but per capita emissions tend to increase with higher incomes in our current fossil energy intensive economies. So absent the transition to a low carbon economy, higher than projected economic growth as a driver of decreased fertility would not necessarily provide the carbon benefits O’Neill et al suggest.

We surely need to transition to low carbon economic development. But there’s ample evidence that fertility rates drop when women have access to voluntary family planning and educational opportunities.

Countries with dramatic drops in total fertility rates are linked to increased access to family planning and other reproductive rights, usually, but not always, along with improvements in mother and child health and female education. In contrast, countries in the same region which did not make similar efforts have higher fertility rates. Original country comparisons source: Association for the Advancement of Science (atlas.aaas.org). Updated data based on United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2011). World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision.

3. Women with Access to Effective Voluntary Family Planning, Education and Economic Opportunities Are Having Fewer Children

Many studies look at population drivers identified in Cairo during the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. This famous conference highlighted the influence on population trends when women have access to effective voluntary family planning so they can decide when and how many children they have, as well as the impact of girls’ education and women’s access to economic opportunities.

Dramatic drop in number of children born per woman in Brazil. Data Source: Cavenaghi, S. and J.E.D. Alves. 2011. Diversity of childbearing behaviour in the context of below-replacement fertility in Brazil, United Nations Population Division- No. 2011/8.

Income makes a larger difference in fertility rates among women who had less than 8 years of education in Brazil (Italy is also shown for comparison). Source: Cavenaghi, S. and J.E.D. Alves. 2011. Diversity of childbearing behaviour in the context of below-replacement fertility in Brazil, United Nations Population Division- No. 2011/8.

Education beyond 9 years of school outstrips income disparities with regard to fertility rates among women in Brazil (Italy is also shown for comparison).

Despite increases in a woman’s ability to plan births in many countries, there remains a substantial “unmet need” in much of the world for access to voluntary family planning (a woman is said to have an unmet need if she does not want to have children in the near future, but is not using an effective method of family planning). Scott Moreland and colleagues report that there remains an estimated unmet need between 5 and 33 percent in the countries of Asia, 6 and 40 percent for Latin America and the Caribbean, and between 13 and 38 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. Meeting this unmet need would help on many economic, quality of life as well as emissions fronts.

Let’s examine Brazil to illustrate the interplay among these factors. In Brazil, fertility  rates have dropped from a high of 6.3 births per woman in 1960 to less than 1.9 births per woman  - below “replacement-level fertility” of about 2.1 children per woman in 2008. “Replacement-level fertility” is the level that, if sustained over time, population size would remain flat absent migration. Increased access for girls and women to education, economic opportunity, and voluntary family planning make a difference as well as the more difficult to measure cultural shifts over this time period.

As country by country reports on education indicate, there are still challenges around the world in giving girls access to quality education.  Again, let us return to Brazil as an example of the interplay among level of education and economic well-being that links with fertility rates (see figures to the right).

In many countries fertility rates remain high. It is instructive to compare similar countries in a region that differ in their fertility rates. These within region contrasts highlighted in the AAAS population atlas demonstrate for example, that in South Asia, Bangladesh reduced fertility rates faster than Pakistan. In the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic experienced greater drop in fertility rates compared to Haiti.

4.  Population Investments are a Complement, Not a Substitute, for Building a Low-Carbon Energy Future.

Investments in “unmet need,” education, and economic opportunities can reduce fertility rates and hence population growth. Work by O’Neill and colleagues show that such reductions in population growth can provide real reductions in heat-trapping emissions. As noted above, these reductions can be part of the solution to climate change.  But smaller populations don’t necessarily produce fewer emissions. How we power our economies and live our lives truly matters.

With roughly 20 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. and other industrialized countries have produced about 80 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy use since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Today, each American generates on average more than four times the carbon dioxide emissions than our counterparts in China, fifteen times that of individuals in India. We have both a responsibility and an economic opportunity to drive global progress by combining deep reductions in our emissions with investments in the development and adoption of clean energy technologies and reduced deforestation abroad.

And we can help support universal access to voluntary family planning and education for women and girls—goals that are critical in their own right and embodied within the Millennium Development Goals—which can also support further reductions in population growth, enhance quality of life, and, when coupled with expanded adoption of clean energy technologies, help all countries limit their emissions as they further develop their economies. The pace of funding on these important international programs have fluctuated over time and still there is more progress to be made to achieve some of the goals set out in Cairo in 1994.

5.  Here are some places you can go to get more information on population and climate change.

UCS doesn’t work directly on population science and policy issues, but we recognize that this is an area that is hugely important and insufficiently discussed in the climate policy arena. In addition to the hyperlinks above, here are some places you can go for more information.

• Population Demographics Research
• U.S. population, energy and climate change intersections;
• Rio+20 meeting on population dynamics, climate change and sustainable development;
• Population and Climate Change Adaptation
• USAID Population Program
• UN Education Program

Send a comment and let us know about any additional resources on this topic that you would like to share.

Looking at a map of these disasters, it’s clear that no part of the country has gone unscathed, with the southern and eastern parts of the country particularly hard hit. Severe storms, tropical cyclones, drought and flooding are among the most frequent and costly types of events.

Source: NOAA

The record number of extreme weather events in 2011 clearly underscores our need to be better prepared and more resilient to the effects of climate change that are already underway, as well as take aggressive steps to cut the emissions that are causing climate change.

Many of these disasters are typical of what we might expect to see with a changing climate. While no single event can be attributed directly to climate change, the odds are that climate change is “loading the dice”. For example, scientists doing research in the emerging area of climate attribution say that it is unlikely that extreme events such as the Texas heat wave of 2011, the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan flooding of 2010, and the European heat wave of 2003 would have occurred in the absence of human-caused climate change.

A recent UCS report, The Hidden Health Risks of Flooding in a Warming World, shows that the number of heavy precipitation events in the United States has increased by more than 30 percent since 1900—and the problem will likely grow worse in the coming years, leaving more and more Americans vulnerable to the immediate and lingering health impacts of flood events.

The 2011 drought in Texas cost the state nearly $8 billion in crop and livestock losses, making it the most costly drought in the history of the state. And there is a real fear that 2012 could see a repeat of similar conditions in many parts of the state.

Undoubtedly, the human and economic toll of climate change will be enormous if we continue on our current path of inaction. Do you think we can have a reasoned, bipartisan national conversation around this critical issue during this election year? What do you think it will take to break through the current impasse?

Cutting Car Carbon Emissions in Half: A Triumph By The People

Last year, the Obama administration proposed new rules that would double the fuel economy of new cars and light trucks and cut their global warming pollution in half by 2025. The year before that, the administration finalized standards that will get the ball rolling by cutting new vehicle global warming pollution 25% by 2016. Together, these policies will reduce global warming pollution by some 640 million metric tons in 2030—the equivalent of shutting down nearly 140 average-size coal-fired power plants for a year. They will also save Americans $150 billion in 2030 alone, after covering the cost of the fuel efficient technology. When it comes to benefits for the people, it is hard for any single government action to get cooler and smarter than that!

Nearly 150 years ago President Lincoln summed up better than anyone the kind of nation we must work to protect—the kind of nation that can overcome any challenge.

The newest round of standards is expected to be finalized this summer. I’m not going to count my chickens before they hatch, but unless oil interests and others do some back room sabotage, this will be a triumph of government relying on the best science to make decisions in the best interest of the people.

But it will also be a triumph of efforts by the people. During the first round of standards, thousands of people wrote to the administration supporting efforts to cut global warming pollution from vehicles. After the second round was proposed, over 280,000 people weighed in with the administration to support doubling fuel economy. Hundreds also packed hearing rooms to make sure their voices were heard in Detroit, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Many also wrote letters to the editor of their local or national paper calling for better cars and less oil use.

Making Government Work for Us

These are exactly the kind of things we’re encouraging everyone to do as part of our practical advice on low-carbon living. Cooler Smarter is a guide to personal action, challenging you to cut your carbon emissions 20 percent this year, but personal action comes in many more forms. That’s why the last third of the book is dedicated to tips on how you can multiply the impact of your choices by the hundreds, thousands, and millions by getting involved in your community, your workplace, and your government.

Never talked to your neighbors or uncle about ways to cut back on energy use? We can help you think through how to reach them in the ways that will motivate change. Never written a letter to the editor on solutions to climate change, we’ve got tips for you. And if you’ve never engaged your representatives or other members of government on the urgency of climate change and benefits of climate solutions, Cooler Smarter  can help you be part of a climate victory like the one we’re getting on clean cars.

You may be frustrated by policymaker inaction on climate change, but America is still a country grounded in the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We’ve got to work hard every day to get closer to that ideal and a key part of that is making sure that our voices are heard when it comes to climate change. And when that chorus gets loud enough, we will change the world for the better.

____________________________________

Photo Credit: Artist is Elihu Vedder (1836–1923). Photographed 2007 by Carol Highsmith (1946–)