Another Look at Climate Change; Part 4 – What Can Be Done?

by Rick O'Connor | Jul 19, 2024

In this series we have found that in the 1970s and 1980s climate scientists developed models that could predict the effects of a warming planet on society.

We saw that society, at that time, had little faith in the accuracy of those model predictions.

We also saw that natural occurring events, like tropical storms and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, gave climate scientists an opportunity to test their models – and their models past with flying colors.

We have seen the development of international councils and panels to address climate change, enhance the models, and provide advice on how to turn the potential negative effects of a warming planet around.

We have also seen that many of the predictions from those early models are occurring, some have occurred faster than the models indicated they would.

So…

Is there anything we can do about it?

The answer is pretty simple really.  Just like those trying to lose weight – you need to either reduce the calories you take in and/or burn those calories off.  With climate you need to reduce the amount of carbon you put into the atmosphere and/or remove the excess carbon.

In 2006 NASA climate scientists stated that we had about a decade to make some serious policy changes to avoid irreversible climate change that could cause economic and ecological havoc.  They mentioned we needed to cut CO_2­ emissions between 50-85% by 2050.  Their suggestions could be found on both sides of the solution model.

Other methods that could help reduce CO₂ emission…

1. Increase the fuel efficiency of our cars. One target had vehicles getting 60 mpg by 2057.
2. Reduce the distance we drive each year. One target had no more than 5000 miles/year.
3. Cut electricity use in homes and offices by 25%.
4. Increase solar power use.
5. Increase wind power use.
6. Increase the use of biofuels.
7. Stop deforestation.
8. Better methods in agriculture.
9. Install scrubbers in fossil fuel burning engines to clean emissions.

So…  How are we doing with these?

Cars are more fuel efficient than they were decades ago.  Many have turned to electric cars, or hybrids.

It seems that we are driving MORE miles each year – not less.  Our society is designed around the need for an automobile – we cannot function without one.  And our city planning seems to have us living farther and farther from our work.  When I was younger there was much talk about mass transit to reduce traffic and emissions.  In large cities where this was already ongoing it continues.  But in the other parts of the county this has not really caught on.  We are still driving too much.

There are methods of making homes more efficient.  My wife and I adopted some of these as we rebuilt our house after a fire.  Compared to neighbors and friends, our power bills are much lower.  Many of these methods and technologies are being used in new home developments and are encouraging.

Solar farms are increasing – even along I-10 in the Florida panhandle.  There is some concern that these solar farms are replacing food farms, but there is an attempt to do this.  Out west we see the same.

The same can be said for wind farms – at least out west.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, biofuel production has increased each year since 1980.

Deforestation has not slowed.  As a matter of fact, many developments in the Florida panhandle begin by removing ALL trees.  In some cases, they replace lost trees with saplings in the new neighborhoods.  But a major source of carbon removal has been removed from the system.  There is much more that needs to be done with this issue.

Speaking for the farmers in the Florida panhandle – yes… many have turned to better land management practices to protect their land and reduce, or sequester, carbon.

“Scrubber” in internal combustion engines is required by law in the U.S.

Despite some of these positive changes, carbon in our atmosphere continues to increase – not decrease.  Part of this is because this is a global issue and that all of human society must work together to reduce greenhouse emissions.  Some countries are doing better than others.  There are international summits every few years to discuss what the world should do to tur the tide on climate.  But all countries need to attend, particularly those producing the largest amount of greenhouse gases.

Here at home, there is resistance to reducing the use of fossil fuels, so many programs have not moved as far forward as they need to move.  It is also important to understand that even with the behavior changes we seek, it will take time to undo the damage already done.  We will not see improvement right away.  Enacting new programs and technologies now could take over 100 years to see the impacts.  It is important to understand that the longer we put changes off, the longer it will be before we see any positive benefits from those actions.

There is the concern that the political and public will is still not there to make these changes happen.  But they will need to if we are to see things begin to improve.

Until then – you can do your part.  Use fossil fuels as little and efficient has you can.  Plant trees to help remove carbon dioxide and shade your house so you need less air conditioning.  There are many other things you can do to help turn the tide on climate.  Check with your local extension office for more ideas.

Another Look at Climate Change – Part 2 How Might the Earth’s Temperature and Climate Change in the Future?

by Rick O'Connor | Jun 28, 2024

As I mentioned in Part 1, I taught Environmental Science in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21^st century.  The information provided below was taught at that time.  The purpose of this series on Another Look at Climate Change is to see if the predictions made at that time are occurring.

Over the 4.5 billion years of our planet’s existence the climate has been altered by volcanic eruptions, changes in solar input, continental drift, and impacts by large meteors.  Over the past 900,000 years our atmosphere has experienced periods of cooling and warming known as glacial and interglacial periods.  We have been fortunate to be in an interglacial period over the last 10,000 years that has allowed humans to exist and grow.  For the past 1000 years temperatures have remained relatively stable but in the last 100 years there has been a noticeable increase.  This began when humans began to clear the forests and burn fossil fuels.

Our planet has gone through extreme climate change in the past.
Photo: NOAA.

Evidence of these temperature changes has come from analysis of radioisotopes, fossils, plankton, ocean sediments, and tiny bubbles in ice cores.  Additional evidence has come from pollen found at the bottom of lakes, tree rings, bat dung in caves, and temperature records collected since 1861.

An ice core is being removed by a NOAA scientist.
Photo: NOAA

Interestingly we need the greenhouse effect to maintain the temperatures within a range for us to survive.  The Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first explained this greenhouse effect in 1896.  Solar radiation penetrates our atmosphere and warms the surface of the earth.  Hot air generated from this surface heating rises but is trapped by a layer gas that includes carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.  These gases act as a greenhouse allowing light through but trapping the rising heated air.  Hence, they are known as greenhouse gases.  Without this natural greenhouse layer, the planet would be too cold for us to live here.

The greenhouse effect.
Image: NOAA

The industrial revolution began about 300 years ago.  The burning of fossil fuels, and loss of photosynthetic trees due to deforestation, resulted in significant increases in these greenhouse gases.  According to a 2007 study, if CO₂ emissions continue to increase at a rate of 3.3% each year, we will reach CO₂ concentrations near 560 parts per million by 2050 and could reach levels near 1,390 ppm by 2100.  At the time this was stated, 2011, scientific studies and models suggested we should prevent CO₂ from exceeding 450 ppm.  Going beyond this we might exceed a tipping point that could trigger climate change impacts for centuries.  NOTE: NOAA published in 2023 that the atmospheric CO_2­ concentration was 419 ppm. 

Power plant on one of the panhandle estuaries.
Photo: Flickr

In 1988 the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) to review past climate changes and predict future ones.  This network included over 2500 climate experts from 130 countries.  In their 2007 report they stated…

1. It is very likely (90-99% probability) that the lower atmosphere is warming.
2. Human activities are responsible for this.

Evidence used for these statements include:

1. Between 1906-2005 the mean global surface temperature had risen 1.3°F. Most of the increase had taken place SINCE 1980.
2. Annual greenhouse gases emissions from human activity have risen 70% between 1970 and 2005. Average CO₂ emissions were higher than they have been in 650,000 years.
3. Since 1960 Arctic temperatures have risen twice as fast as the rest of the planet.
4. In some parts of the world glaciers and sea ice were melting, rainfall patterns were changing, and prolonged droughts were on the rise.
5. During the 20^th century sea levels rose between 4-8 inches.

Data in 2011 showed that the melting of ice in the Arctic had increased since the 2007 IPPC report.  One scientist, Allan Robock, stated that the ice was melting at a faster rate than their computer models said it would.

What is the scientific consensus about future temperature change?

1. It is very likely (90-99% probability) that human activities are the cause of the recent increase. Particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
2. It is very likely (90-99% probability) the earth’s mean surface temperature will increase 3.6-8.1°F between 2005 and 2100. NOTE: Since 2005 the rate of warming has doubled.  In one year (2023) the mean temperature of the planet increased 1.44°F – the largest annual increase in 144 years.  This was partially due to being an El Nino year. 

In 2011 there was the question as to whether the oceans could help absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere.  At that time the ocean was absorbing between 25-30% of the CO₂ emitted by humans.  However, the solubility of CO₂ in the oceans decreases with increasing water temperatures.  As the oceans warm some of the dissolved CO₂ would be re-released into the atmosphere and could amplify global warming and climate change.  At that time, the oceans had warmed between 0.6-1.2°F during the 20^th century.  According to a 2007 study the oceans were absorbing less CO₂ than they had in the past.  NOTE: A 2017 study indicated that mean sea surface temperatures of the oceans have increased 0.22°F since 2000.  This is twice as fast as the early models predicted. 

The consensus is that the warming predicted by the computer models used at the time is occurring and – in some cases – faster than they thought.

In Part 3 we will look at what they thought some of the possible effects of this warming trend could be and whether any of those predictions have actually happened.

References

Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment; Concepts, Connections, and Solutions. 16^th Edition.  Brooks and Cole. Belmont CA. 674 pp.

Lindsey R. 2024. Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. NOAA Climate.  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.

The Changing Climate: Part 5 (Solutions)

by Rick O'Connor | Nov 4, 2021

In this series we have looked at where the concept of climate change came from and how climate has changed over the centuries.  We looked closer at the changes over the last decade and what the most recent IPCC report is telling us.  We also looked at how changes have impacted Florida and the panhandle specifically.  Much of the news is concerning to many and the outlook for the rest of the century paints a picture of climate problems we will have to deal with.  But hope is not lost.  Based on the 2021 AR6 report, even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, the sea will rise – we have missed that tipping point and will have to plan for that.  But there are other areas where our communities can make changes to help turn this thing around.  In Part 5 we will look at potential solutions and specifically focus on where individuals like you and I can make changes that can help.

Photo: Molly O’Connor

Where do you start?

As G.T. Miller states in his book Living in the Environment¹ it is going to be tough.  It is a global problem and will take many nations to agree to make things happen.  We know how hard that can be.  It is also a political problem, and we know that can be hard as well.  It is also affecting some regions of the planet more than others and thus some will be more concerned and ready to act, while others do not see the need to spend resources on the issue.  Miller states there are two basic plans of attack on this – (1) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or (2) try and mitigate the impacts.

During the 1970s Dr. William Rathje developed a program at the University of Arizona called Garbology.  One of the objectives of the program was to determine what humans throw away in order to determine what the “big players” were in reducing solid waste going to the landfill¹.  They were able to develop a pie chart showing what items made up the material we call garbage and then developed a plan to reduce those “big players”.  Let’s take the same approach with reducing greenhouse gases.  What are the sources of these gases?  Who are the “big players” so that we know where to direct our efforts to significantly reduce emissions and curtail some of the possible problems predicted by the models?

According to a 2021 EPA report, carbon dioxide (CO₂) makes up 76% of the global greenhouse gas emissions².  This would be an obvious gas to target significant reductions.  86% of the carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels, a more specific target for reduction and a good starting point.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

So, where are fossil fuels being burned?

Where can we begin to discuss reductions there?

The same US EPA report breaks down the economic sectors where greenhouse gases are being produced on a global scale.  A second report focuses on those same sectors but from the United States³.  The table below compares these two.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

              noted that total my not round to 100% due to independent rounding

Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. economic sectors to those of the world shows a few things.

1. Electricity and heat production is a major producer of GHG and a good target for reduction.
2. Transportation is a larger problem in the U.S., in fact it is the number one problem.
3. Agriculture and forestry are larger problems on the global scale, less of one in the U.S.
4. Commercial and residential use is a larger problem than agriculture and forestry in the U.S., it was not even reported on a global scale.

Now we know who the “big players” are.  Can we do anything about these?

Reducing emissions from electricity and heat production will have to come from our leaders.  At the time of this writing, the United Nations Climate Summit is going in Scotland and much discussion about this is going on.  China, Russia, and India are all concerned about reducing GHG from coal powered plants.  This is understandable being that this is the major source of energy for those nations.  However, the negative impact of burning coal on the climate is serious and cannot be ignored if the world is serious about reducing, or eliminating, the long-term impacts of climate change.  So, the move away from coal is a good start.

Power plant on one of the panhandle estuaries.
Photo: Flickr

The EPA reported in 2019 that United States has seen a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions primarily due to a decrease in energy use and the decrease in the use of coal – showing it can be done³.  The United States is discussing reducing the use of coal even further, but not all in congress support this – primarily those who represent states where coal mining is a large industry.  But again, the negative impacts of burning coal are there and, if the world wants to “turn this thing around”, we will need to consider doing this.  Again, there is little the citizen can do to make these changes other than selecting leaders who are willing to.  It is in their hands.

The transportation issue is different… we can make a difference here.

In the U.S. transportation produces 29% of the greenhouse gas emissions, #1.  It is only 14% of the problem worldwide.  Americans love their cars.  We drive everywhere.  Most Americans live at least 25 miles from where they work, many live much further, some actually live in a different state.  Being work, most of these drivers are traveling alone, carpooling is not a common practice, and mass transit is not available in many communities.  So, we sit in traffic jams every morning and evening trying to get to the places we want, and need, and complain of the congestion, wishing the local government could improve traffic flow.  One of the reasons we have this problem, and other parts of the world do not, is how we design our cities.

Heavy traffic is common place in the U.S. with our dependence on cars.
Photo: Rick O’Connor

Some city planners argue the best way to reduce the transportation issue is by compact development.  This is a plan that would have residents live within walking or biking distance of everything they need – home, work, stores, etc.  Our ancestors lived this way primarily because they had to, they did not have cars.  The wealthy, who had horse and carriage, could live outside of town and ride in when they wanted.

This desire to live outside of the city in more open space could be used in another form of urban development that could still reduce the transportation problem – satellite development.  In this method, residents would live in suburb areas that were connected to the urban workplace by mass transit.  Imagine living in a suburb where you went to the rail station, climbed on, and traveled over greenspaces (supporting forest and pasture lands) to the urban work area.  There are many cities in the U.S. who have this type of system in place, but few travel over greenspaces – they mostly travel over other suburban developments.

However, this would generate crowds at the terminal and the stress that comes with it.  It would make it harder to “stop by the store” on the way home – though the stores would be within walking distance in the residential “satellite” area.  Walt Disney promoted this idea when he was planning Epcot and used the monorail as an example of how it could be done.

But we love our cars… so, another plan would be what is called corridor development.  Here, people would live in the residential satellite suburbs but rather than mass transit into the city, there would be a “freeway” for cars to use.  Freeway in this sense meaning nothing but highway… no traffic lights, no stores, nothing the impede traffic until you get there.  Think in terms of our interstate system.  There are many examples of this design around the country.  Even here close to home, highway 98 was diverted around Destin to avoid traffic jams.  The idea was there would be a clear road around if you were traveling through.  But as we will see, in most cases, this did not work.

Heavy urban development “sprawls” away from the city in many U.S. communities. The “corridor” to work has become congested.
Photo: Rick O’Connor

In most cases we plan a corridor design but along the “freeway” route we build new residential developments – they want stores closer and so strip malls and other commercial developments spring up – these residents and businesses need access to the “freeway”, so traffic lights go up and now the city has basically moved away from the central hub into the suburbs forming what we call a megalopolis.  I bet this scenario sounds very familiar.  It is happening everywhere – even here in the Pensacola area.

Urban sprawl is a big problem and only makes the transportation issue a larger one.  G.T. Miller Jr. mentions that urban sprawl is occurring because

1. There is affordable land to do so
2. We have automobiles so we can function in the design
3. Gasoline is cheap
4. And we do not plan our cities well

So, we live in a car dominated society – traveling everywhere – usually alone.

Can we do anything about this?

Many scientists and economists believe the only way to reduce the transportation problem is to make it expensive to use.  It is believed that making gasoline more expensive would force many to change their driving habits.  Currently gas prices are moving towards $4.00 / gallon.  We have seen this before and the driving practices did not change much.  Some economists believe you will not see such changes until gas reaches $5.00 or $6.00 / gallon – a price many other developed nations routinely spend.  It will be interesting to see.

How high will gas prices have to go before U.S. transportation behaviors change?
Photo: Rick O’Connor

Another idea on the cost side is a gasoline tax to cover the estimated harmful costs of driving.  The funds from such taxes could be used to develop mass transit systems, bike lanes, and sidewalks.  This is occurring in other parts of the world but would probably not work in the United States.  Miller gives three reasons why it would be a hard sell in the United States.

• There would be opposition to any tax.
• Fast, efficient, reliable, and affordable mass transit systems and bike lanes are not widely available in most U.S. communities
• The way our communities are designed… we need cars

Other suggested financial methods would include raising parking fees within the city, and more toll roads.

But while we wait and see where gas prices will go and when people will make changes in their driving habits, is there anything else we could do?

Yes…

Carpooling has been suggested since the 1970s.  It does occur but has not caught on as many had hoped.  Within our community here in Pensacola there are several “park and ride” parking lots and there usually cars in them.

This carpool parking lot near Pensacola is completely full. Indicating more use of this service.
Photo: Rick O’Connor

Carpooling is one method to reduce fuel use and GHG emissions.
Photo: Rick O’Connor

There has been an increase interest in hybrid and electric cars in recent years.  One concern for electric was the ability to pull heavy loads, something Americans will require.  In just the past year one major auto maker began promoting an all-electric truck they assure has the pulling power of a similar size gas powered truck.  One colleague of mine recently bought an all-electric jeep which he assured me has plenty of power to pull.  More electric charge stations are appearing in local communities, and it seems this is an option for many.

It was also noted in the EPA report that changing our driving habits (i.e., fast starts, incorrect tire pressure, etc.) does make a difference.  I know we have all seen the driver who is speeding – darting in and out of traffic only to be at the same stop light with all others in the end.  So, changing HOW we drive can help as well.

As mentioned, agriculture and forestry are not as big of an issue in the U.S. as it is on a global scale.  There are numerous BMPs farmers can use to reduce their carbon footprint and restore the natural carbon-sequestration.  Most not only help with reducing GHG but save the farmers money.  There are financial incentives for them to participate in these BMP programs – and so many farmers are using these BMPs.   But none-the-less there are things we can still do in this area.

• Support local farmers who are participating in BMP programs by purchasing their products where/when you can. On a global scale the negative impacts of agriculture are increasing.  You may have to do a little homework to see where our farmers are selling their products, but it is good to support their efforts.
• Plant a tree… though our forestry industry is making improvements, many communities are clearing land to expand development. Many of these developments are clearing ALL of the trees and putting few back afterwards.  Planting a tree not only helps sequester carbon it has been found that shade from trees can lower internal house temperatures up to 10°F, saving heating and cooling costs as well as the energy needed for these¹.

Author and county forester Cathy Hardin demonstrates proper tree planting at a past Arbor Day program. Photo credit: Carrie Stevenson, UF IFAS Extension

And then there is commercial and residential energy use.  Something that did not even make it on a global scale.

How can we reduce energy use at home and at work?

There are plenty of ways and we need to consider them.  According to the EPA report, energy use in the residential and commercial sector is increasing, not decreasing³.

Let’s begin with smart buildings…

Our home was struck by lighting in 2013 and we rebuilt using as many energy efficient methods as we could.  Spray foam insultation, better windows, energy efficient appliances, LED lighting, metal roof, and setting the thermostat smarter have all worked well for us.  We are typically billed less than $200 per month for our electricity – and there is more we can do.  Your local utility company, and your county extension office, can give you numerous tips on how you can save energy in your home or office.

The 2019 EPA report suggests that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing in the areas of transportation, residential and commercial use, and some agriculture practices.  But they are decreasing in energy production, industrial processing, and forestry activities.  So, we know we can do this.  We just need to step up and do it.

References

¹ Miller Jr., G.T., S.E. Spoolman. 2011. Living in the Environment; Concepts, Connections, and Solutions.  17^th edition.  Brooks and Cole Publishing.  Belmont CA. pp. 674.

² Sources of Greenhouse Emissions. 2021. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.  United States Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data.

³ Sources of Greenhouse Emissions. 2019. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.  United States Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions