MONTHLY NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 2018
Woods Hole Research Center Paris agreement moves forward, but still not on track Dr. Philip B. Duffy President & Executive Director Negotiators at the United Nations climate meeting in Katowice, Poland, reached agreement last week on the “Paris Rulebook,” provisions for implementing the Paris climate agreement. The specifics of this are mind-numbingly tedious, but even so very important. The Rulebook includes provisions for how emissions reductions may be accomplished, for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions, and for financing mitigation and adaptation measures in the developing world. The Rulebook should provide enough specificity and transparency to increase confidence that countries are living up to their commitments (if indeed they are). Russia, for example, has never ratified the agreement, supposedly because of a lack of transparency in measuring and reporting emissions. The rulebook should satisfy that concern, if that is truly Russia’s worry. The most important benefit of greater rigor and transparency should be increased willingness by countries to undertake more ambitious emissionsreductions commitments in 2020. We desperately need those, and we need countries to do better at meeting the commitments they’ve made already. As has been often pointed out, existing emissions-reductions commitments, which expire in 2030, are nowhere near sufficient to meet any reasonable climate goal (e.g. limiting global warming to 1.5° or 2° Celsius). And as the years since Paris tick by, it has also become apparent that many countries (now including the United States) are not on track to meet even those inadequate commitments. This is not good.
The role of the United States in this round of negotiations was an embarrassment, on many issues siding with long-standing obstructionists Saudi Arabia and Russia. Adding insult to injury, the State Department issued a statement declaring in part: “The United States is not taking on any burdens or financial pledges in support of the Paris Agreement.” This is true enough, but nothing to brag about. The statement also claimed that the United States “will work with our many partner countries to innovate and deploy a broad array of technologies that promote economic growth, improve energy security, and protect the environment.” I see no evidence that this is true. On the contrary, our government is engaged in an elaborate and silly exercise of denying the obvious and promoting outdated and dangerous energy technologies (fossil fuels), which they did in Poland with an exhibit showcasing the supposed role of fossil fuels in addressing climate change. This embarrassing display of willful ignorance was recognized and condemned, and thankfully also widely ignored. Perhaps most shamefully, the Trump administration also took credit for U.S. emissions reductions, which of course have resulted from Obama-era policies that they are busily dismantling. As unsatisfactory as all of this may be, it is about the best outcome that could have been expected from this round of
COP24 continued on next page
WHRC is an independent research organization where scientists study climate change and how to solve it, from the Amazon to the Arctic. Learn more at www.whrc.org.
New study says scientific basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding is stronger than ever by Dave McGlinchey
A new study published by Science this month has found that scientific evidence supporting the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gases is stronger and more conclusive than it was when the ruling was originally made. In the landmark Endangerment Finding the EPA determined that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, which created a legal obligation for the agency to regulate these gases emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Science paper found that since 2009 “the amount, diversity, and sophistication of the evidence has increased dramatically,
clearly strengthening endangerment.”
the
case
for
The study was led by WHRC President Phil Duffy, and WHRC scientist Sue Natali was a co-author.
This finding could strengthen challenges to proposed efforts to rollback emissions standards and carbon emissions regulations in the United States. The Science paper was published three months after Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) said that the Trump Administration might still try to repeal the landmark Endangerment Finding. This month, E&E News reported recently that as the EPA proposed a replacement for Obama-era power plant regulations, it also included a footnote asking for input on the Endangerment Finding. “When the Endangerment Finding was issued, the evidence supporting it was extremely compelling,“ Duffy said. “Now, that evidence is even stronger and more comprehensive. There’s no scientific basis for questioning the endangerment finding.”
The Science paper includes 16 authors from 15 different organizations. It assesses how the scientific evidence has changed in the nine years since the finding was issued, with a specific focus on climate change impacts for public health, air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise, energy, infrastructure, wildlife, ocean acidification, social instability, and the economy.
COP24 continued from front negotiations. What we need most, of course, is vastly more ambitious emissions-reductions pledges, globally. The next opportunity for that to happen is and always was in 2020, when the next round of Paris commitments will be made.
In the meanwhile, we can hope and pray for a massive increase in political will, but I’m not betting on that. We also need a groundswell of actions by non-federal actors. More and more of
University of Virginia Professor Scott Doney, a co-author on the paper, told CBS News in Charlottesville, Virginia, that the study showed “the scientific case is clear and compelling: greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and ocean acidification, with a host of negative consequences for people, communities, the economy and the environment.”
The paper examines each topic covered by the Endangerment Finding and characterizes changes since 2009 in terms of evidence of links to anthropogenic climate change, severity of observed and projected impacts, and new risks. “There is no question that public health and welfare are endangered by climate change and we know that with much more confidence now than we did in 2009,” said study co-author Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
The study expands the range of negative impacts from climate change beyond those listed in 2009 to include increased dangers from ocean acidification, effects on national security and economic wellbeing, and even threats from violence. “Much of what we’ve learned since the original Endangerment Finding in 2009 arises from extreme events,” said study co-author Noah Diffenbaugh, Kara J Foundation Professor of Earth System Science and Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow at Stanford University. “Our understanding of how global warming influences the odds of heat waves, droughts, heavy precipitation, storm surge flooding, and wildfires has increased dramatically in the last decade, as has our understanding of the related impacts, such as how hot conditions affect mental health, violence, and economic productivity.”
my time and energy, and of WHRC’s work, is dedicated to making that happen. Our new partnership with Wellington Management is an example. There, we are using climate science to mobilize action on climate change in an important and influential industry. We have plans and ambitions to do much more along those lines, and I hope that you’ll stand with us as we work to realize them. Thanks as always for your interest and support.
WHRC scientist testifies to state lawmakers on climate urgency by Dave McGlinchey
Speaking to a packed hearing room at the Massachusetts Statehouse, WHRC scientist Dr. Sue Natali told state lawmakers this week that a series of recent reports have made it clear that climate change impacts are urgent and immediate. The combined hearing of the House and Senate climate change committees was organized by State Senator Marc Pacheco – with a stated purpose of reviewing the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act and discussing whether the state needs to increase its ambition on climate change mitigation.
Pacheco said that he felt compelled to hold the hearing before the end of December so that the legislature could develop “some type of New Year’s resolution” to start 2019 with a strong focus on climate change. Natali testified alongside Dr. Ellen Douglas, a sea level rise expert from
photos courtesy of MA State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) UMass-Boston, John Rogers, an energy analyst from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and David Ismay, an attorney from the Conservation Law Foundation.
the state would join a coalition of eight Northeast and mid-Atlantic states to develop a market-based system to reduce transportation-related carbon emissions.
The second panel featured Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environment Matthew Beaton, who announced that
“These are no longer projections,” she said. “These are observations.”
“In short, the situation is dire and it is getting worse,” Natali said. “In the 1970s and 1980s, Woods Hole Research Center scientists and many others projected future impacts from a warming and changing climate. Those impacts are happening now.”
Still, some lawmakers said that the state should do more. State Senator Michael Barrett asked panelists what could be done to prompt more urgent action. Natali responded that it would be powerful to draw attention to the fact that climate change is hurting people and damaging property now.
North American carbon cycle report shows reduced emissions and economic growth by Megan McBride
The United States has been reducing fossil fuel emissions without hurting the economy, according to the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2). The report was written by over 200 scientists from across the United States, Canada and Mexico and released on
November 23 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
As part of a thorough assessment of the carbon cycle in North America, the report notes that over the last decade the U.S. economy grew while fossil fuel emissions declined on average one percent a year. SOCCR2 provides a thorough review of the carbon cycle, the complex web that encompasses all the ways in which carbon moves through the environment. The report’s 19 chapters discuss the ways in which the carbon cycle is impacted by both natural and human actions, stating that “multiple lines of evidence throughout SOCCR2 demonstrate that humans have the capacity to significantly affect the carbon cycle.” WHRC Senior Scientist Dr. Richard Birdsey, the lead author of the SOCCR2 Executive Summary, agreed. “If we really want to do anything about [climate change] we need to realize that carbon is embedded in every aspect of
our lives. Everything has an impact on the carbon cycle,” Birdsey said.
Birdsey, who joined WHRC after retiring from the U.S. Forest Service, was one of the few scientists who also worked on the first SOCCR released in 2007. Birdsey said that one of the new elements of the second report is an increased focus on social science, including an entire chapter titled “Social Science Perspectives on Carbon.” The report does not make recommendations for specific policy proposals, but does lay out options for carbon management, including: reducing fossil fuel use, improved land management practices and reduced methane emissions from livestock. Previously unexplored data from inland and coastal waters also helped scientists solve the mystery of North America’s “missing carbon sink” – an approximately 400 teragram discrepancy in accounting between atmospheric and land carbon flows that has now been reconciled.
Arctic Report Card highlights unraveling natural systems by Dave McGlinchey
A federal government report confirmed this month what scientists have been reporting for years – that the Arctic’s natural systems are unraveling and collapsing in the face of a warming climate. The five hottest years in recorded Arctic history have occurred in the past five years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
annual Arctic Report Card. The report was released at the American Geophysical Union’s famous Fall Meeting. It also reported that 95% of thick sea ice, which lasts from year-to-year, has disappeared over the past three decades. The report was compiled by 81 authors, including WHRC Senior Scientists Max Holmes and Jennifer Francis, and Research Assistant Anya Suslova. Holmes
and Suslova authored a chapter on Arctic rivers. Francis wrote about the link between a warming Arctic and extreme weather at lower latitudes.
“The report card continues to document a rapid unraveling of the Arctic,” WHRC Senior Arctic Policy Fellow Rafe Pomerance told the New York Times. “The signals of decline are so powerful and the consequences so great that they demand far more urgency from all governments to reduce emissions.” At the press conference announcing the report, NOAA Administrator Timothy Galludet was asked repeatedly if he or other senior NOAA officials had shared the findings with President Donald Trump. Galludet said that no one at NOAA had been asked to brief the White House on any climate science issues. During the same press conference, NOAA’s Arctic Research Program Manager Emily Osborne highlighted Francis’ work as a strong example of Arctic warming having an impact on people living in the continental United States. “The connections between climate change and extreme weather are a topic of intense scientific interest and of profound societal impact,” Francis wrote. “It’s becoming ice-crystal-clear that change in the far north will increasingly affect us all.”
Public Lecture Series: Climate Change Action in the Private Sector This series will focus on climate change action, from the financial to the outdoor industry sector, to the educational and faith-based communities. Come hear how the private sector and other communities are responding to climate change.
January 16, 2019 | How the capital markets can influence climate change
Chris Goolgasian, Wellington Management‘s Managing Director, Director, Investment Strategy, and Portfolio Manager
February 13, 2019 | Climate justice OR climate: just us - moral case for putting equity at the center of climate action Rev. Mariama White-Hammond, Pastor at New Roots AME Church and Faith Fellow at the Green Justice Coalition
March 2019 | TBD
April 2019 | How the OIA is helping small businesses scale best practices in sustainability throughout their supply chains Nikky Hodgson, Manager, Sustainable Business Innovation, Outdoor Industry Association
Researchers study the effects of phosphorus pollution in the Amazon by Megan McBride
In the first experiment of its kind in the world, a team of WHRC scientists is studying the impact of phosphorus on tropical stream ecosystems.
Phosphorus is the main fertilizer used on the soy and corn farms common in the region of Brazil where WHRC studies agricultural impacts at the Tanguro ranch and research station. This September, the WHRC team used machetes to cut their way to a small stream near the ranch, and turned on a pump that will increase the phosphorus concentration to 15 times its natural levels. The system took about one week to install, according to WHRC Research Assistant Hillary Sullivan. The team used the time to test different addition rates, and also to protect the machinery from local wildlife – everything from ants to wild pigs. Sullivan said that the team installed a cage around the pump to stop a local colony of pigs from destroying the machinery. Over the course of a year, the experiment will simulate the impact of runoff from phosphorus-based fertilizer on the rainforest stream ecosystem. The WHRC team travels to Brazil every other month to meet with local colleagues and take samples. They are looking at the effects of phosphorus on the chemistry and biodiversity of the stream - measuring changes in water quality,
studying impacts on nutrient processing and monitoring responses from fish and invertebrates. The data being collected in the experiment will help researchers learn more about how streams and tropical systems react to increased levels of fertilizer, how long phosphorus stays in the ecosystem. The research is intended to help farmers and policy makers better understand the impacts of farming on tropical streams. WHRC Senior Scientist Linda Deegan explained that the team hopes to help tropical regions around the world
avoid the environmental degradation that followed increased agricultural production in temperate areas.
“This research will help us understand the impact of increased levels of nutrients in the Amazon before agricultural intensification takes place. Instead of having to restore ecosystems, we will provide the information needed to avoid degrading them in the first place.” Deegan said. “Experiments like these are key to finding ways to increase agricultural production without harming the environment.”
News briefs
In the news
Vice President Alison Smart and Associate Scientist Dr. Wayne Walker represented WHRC at the annual United Nations Conference of Parties, held this year in Katowice, Poland. WHRC held an official side event with Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), an organization representing indigenous groups in the Amazon, and the Environmental Defense Fund. At that event, Walker spoke about new research on the amount of soil and aboveground biomass carbon stored globally on indigenous controlled lands.
Trump Climate Change Report. WHRC Senior Advisor Dr. John Holdren was interviewed about the National Climate Assessment for Living on Earth. November 30. https://bit.ly/2PSbnYW
More than 20 WHRC staff and scientists attended the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Washington, D.C. in mid-December. WHRC scientists gave talks and presented posters on a range of research issues. The students of the 2018 Polaris Project also attended the meeting to present posters on their Arctic Research.
Warming in Arctic Raises Fears of a ‘Rapid Unraveling’ of the Region. WHRC Associate Scientist Dr. Sue Natali and Senior Arctic Policy Fellow Rafe Pomerance were quoted in The New York Times on the implications of NOAA’s annual Arctic Report Card. December 11. https:// nyti.ms/2LabkH6
Study: 'No Scientific Basis' For Challenges To EPA Endangerment Finding. WHRC President Dr. Philip Duffy was interviewed by WBUR about the study he led on the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. A story ran on the radio program All Things Considered and an article was posted on the WBUR website. December 13. https://wbur.fm/2ElBlBK 2018 Arctic Report Card Finds 'Most Unprecedented Transition in History.' Natali was also quoted in The Weather Channel’s online report about the Arctic Report Card. December 17. https://wxch.nl/2rNidFp
Follow us! #ScienceForTheWorld woodsholeresearchcenter WoodsHoleResCtr woodsholeresearchcenter
Invest in the future of the Earth Please support the
Woods Hole Research Center Donate Now www.whrc.org/support
Woods Hole Research Center 149 Woods Hole Road Falmouth, MA 02540 508-540-9900 www.whrc.org
Please help us to conserve paper. To receive this newsletter electronically, please send your email address to info@whrc.org.
World Soil Day was December 5. Mangrove forest soils hold more than 6.4 billion tons of carbon globally, according to a paper published earlier this year by Jonathan Sanderman in Environmental Research Letters. That's about 4.5 times the carbon emitted by the U.S. economy in one year.