There was an excellent op-ed this weekend in the NY Times that reminds us that we’re in a race. As the climate system continues to show unmistakable signs of a warming world – signs that are accelerating – we need to bring greater focus to how to get ahead of the curve and do what we can do quickly to reduce the forces that are driving the climate off a cliff.
Veerabhadran Ramanathan has been doing critical work in atmospheric science for decades. His co-author on the op-ed, David G. Victor, has also been engaged in important work on climate and energy. Their message is simple: Reduce greenhouse gases that are pernicious but which can be lowered quickly. Here is a chart from an update on GHGs I wrote based on calculations from NASA scientists and others reflecting the importance of methane, black carbon and ozone.
If, as Ramanathan and Victor write, we can produce agreement to get these GHGs down then we will be able to stabilize the climate somewhat and buy time as we continue to address the longer-term, more difficult nuts to crack, principally carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation. The Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) has been helping to promote this key message in its “Fast-Action Climate Mitigation Campaign.” Their press release underscores some of the smart tacks to take on methane, black carbon and ozone, but also on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs, a replacement for the potent ozone-depleting CFCs, chemicals that the Montreal Protocol have largely eliminated from use, have a huge global warming potential (GWP) relative to carbon dioxide. They could be phased out quickly too.
There are massive co-benefits to be gained in reducing these pollutants, in the case of ozone and black carbon, principally in lowering their devastating health impacts, and in the case of methane, capturing much of it to use for fuel for underserved areas.
Another NYT story caught my eye this weekend. This article looked at some challenges to the Sunrise Powerlink, a key transmission line for Southern California. Although the line would channel solar, wind and geothermally produced electricity to San Diego and its neighbors, some folks want to stop the line based on environmental concerns. I’m as committed a tree hugger as you’re likely to find anywhere, and have been for a very long time, but I cannot see how, given the present situation and the circumstances that exist in California, this project should not be allowed to progress. The article spells out a pretty weak argument against the project.
We are truly in a race to save our sorry souls and our home, so monkey wrenches like these are counterproductive in the extreme.
