Download 2014-May Action Sheet - Business Climate Leaders

CLIMATE ADVOCATES
Action Sheet, May 2014
MONTHLY CONFERENCE CALL, SATURDAY, MAY 10 2014





Meet at 9:45am PT/12:45pm ET
Call in at 9:55 am PT/12:55 pm ET
National conference call starts at 10:00 am PT/1:00 pm ET
WEBINAR hosted by AnyMeeting. Participants should have received invite by email
Back-up audio: (if anymeeting audio fails) Dial-in Number: (712) 432-1500 Code: 988062#
NATIONAL ACTION MENU



When the new standards are released, use the op-ed template below to respond to articles.
Schedule a meeting with editorial staff or reporters to talk about the coming Carbon
Standards. We have a Powerpoint you can use to take with you. Take the op-ed template
with you.
Consider this credo
Why I Act On Climate
I believe that I can have a major impact on the fate of our planet if I work
tirelessly toward climate solutions, think big, and act fearlessly.
I believe that bold actions by a few brave people can change the course of
history and stabilize the Earth’s climate. I believe I am one of those people.
Doing this will not be easy or comfortable, but it is definitely possible. And since
it is possible, I must try.
I will not give up.
LASER TALK: WHAT’S UP WITH THE ARCTIC? (AND WHY WE SHOULD CARE)
You may have heard people talk about the Albedo effect as being part of the reason why the Arctic is warming
faster than was first expected, and faster than the rest of the planet. When we talk about global warming, albedo
is the proportion of incident sunlight that is reflected by a surface. Snow and ice reflect more sunlight than
oceans.
As Arctic ice disappears, sunlight that was once reflected by the ice instead falls on open water, which absorbs
more of the solar energy and reflects less. So the ice loss triggers a positive feedback: by exposing the ocean
surface to sunlight, the water warms up. This melts the ice from underneath, Great ocean surface area means
more water evaporates, which increases humidity. Since water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, the
temperature rises more, so more ice melts, which exposes more water, which melts more ice from underneath…
This is a good example of a positive feedback.
1|P a g e
Action Sheet, May 2014
Largely because of this process, temperatures have increased about twice as fast in the Arctic as in the midlatitudes, a phenomenon known as “Arctic amplification.”
The map shows global temperature anomalies for 2000 to 2009. It does not depict absolute temperature, but
rather how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951 to 1980. Global
temperatures from 2000–2009 were on average about 0.6°C higher than they were from 1951–1980. The Arctic,
however, was about 2°C warmer.
The effect of global warming on the Arctic that people tend to think of is the melting of snow and ice. There has
been an exponential increase in the amount of seasonal sea ice melting in the Arctic every year. Because it takes
more energy to melt ice than to warm air, the increased melting of ice in the Arctic ‘uses up’ atmospheric energy,
and we actually see somewhat cooler average air temperatures in the Arctic.
The Arctic’s sea ice is not just melting, it’s anatomically different. In the past, the ice was more of a solid block.
Now it’s full of fractures, creating much more surface area exposed to the warmer water and air. As a result we are
seeing melting occurring at rates 10-40 times greater than at any time in the geological record. . In 2012 there was
a record decline in Arctic sea ice, and the overall trend is tracking an exponential curve.
After pondering this, people may wonder, “so what?” The answer has to do with the fact that the Arctic doesn’t
exist in a vacuum, it’s part of the rapidly changing global climate system. It is a very important part of that system
precisely because of its huge reservoir of ice, and how that reservoir interacts with the rest of the system.
We all know that the equator is warm year-round; that’s why so many of us like to vacation there. The equatorial
zones are warmer because they face the sun directly, year-round and have a year-round, consistent 12 hours of
daylight, every day.
The poles, on the other hand, receive less solar energy because the light comes in at a low angle and is attenuated
by its longer path through the atmosphere. And for part of the year, the poles receive no solar light energy at all.
As a result, they are always colder than the equator.
The temperature differential between the pole and the equator creates an atmospheric pressure difference.
Because colder air is heavier, air at the poles creates a high pressure zone at the surface. The equator’s warmer air
is lighter and creates a low pressure zone there, also at the surface. This pressure difference causes high speed
winds to flow. These winds are called jet streams, and at their peak, they blow more than 200 miles per hour. But,
they’re slowing down due to global warming, and that is a big part of why we have more extreme and disruptive
weather. Here’s why.
Liquid water absorbs solar radiation while snow and ice reflect it. As Arctic ice and snow melts, there is less white
area to reflect the incident solar radiation and proportionally more ocean surface to absorb it. As a result, global
warming at the poles is 2-6 times greater there than at the equator. This reduces the temperature and pressure
differences between the poles and the equator.
Because of the reduced pressure differential, the planet’s jet streams slow down and, instead of flowing in a
relatively straight line parallel to the equator, they wander to the south and north. Looking at the jet streams on a
map, they get “wavier”: Instead of moving mostly west to east with small north / south movement, the west to
east speed slows and the waves move great distances in the north / south direction.)
Here’s the so what: The jet streams form a boundary between the colder polar air and the warmer air further
south. So when the jet streams meander to the south, the cold air follows. When they wander to the north, the
warm air follows. This year’s extremely long cold winter in the Continental U.S. was caused by a long-lasting sag of
the jet stream to the south. At the same time, Alaska had a very warm winter caused by the jet stream flowing far
north of its usual path.
2|P a g e
Action Sheet, May 2014
Because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, and it stays
there longer. Then, when it starts to rain, there’s more water to ‘dump.’ The storms also last longer because
slower moving jet streams means that storms are staying in one place longer. So we see longer and more intense
storms causing mega floods.
As a result of all this, what used to be called 100 year storms are occurring far more frequently. When these mega
storms drop all their water in one place, the atmospheric water doesn’t make it to other places, which causes
more (and more intense droughts) in places that used to get more and regular water.
OP ED TEMPLATE
States Can Lead Action Against Climate Change, the Gravest
Environmental Threat of Our Time
This is a critical moment. Carbon pollution encircles our planet. Last Spring the concentration of carbon dioxide in
our atmosphere climbed to 400 parts per million. That’s the highest in human history. It puts us in jeopardy.
This heat-trapping blanket is wreaking havoc. Superstorm Sandy caused $60 billion in damages. A massive 2012
drought covered 60 percent of our country. Wildfires burned up 9.3 million acres of land the same year. Biblical
floods pounded Colorado last September causing more than $1 billion in destruction. And today, California
struggles with an historic lack of water. Globally, the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. These
are signs things will get much worse if we don’t address climate change now.
Such intense climate disruption is hitting our wallets. Extreme weather—powerful floods, drought, storms,
wildfires, winds and heat—cost more than $140 billion in 2012. Taxpayers picked up the lion’s share of the bill—to
the tune of $1,100 per taxpayer.
The good news, if we look for some, is that most Americans know we’re in trouble. We recognize this is the most
dire and dangerous environmental crisis of our time. We want action.
In fact, seven in 10 Americans favor the Environmental Protection Agency putting limits on carbon pollution from
power plants, a new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll shows.
President Obama has Started to Counter the Threat of Climate Change
Last summer, President Obama put climate change high on the nation’s agenda. He unveiled a robust National
Climate Initiative. It has three key parts: curb carbon pollution driving climate change, expand clean energy and
efficiency to reduce our need for fossil fuel energy and make our communities more resilient in the face of climate
impacts.
His plan takes aim at the heart of the problem: The roughly 1500 electricity-generating power plants in our country
emit 40 percent of our carbon footprint. Their pollution is a key driver of climate change. The president directed
the EPA to set standards limiting carbon pollution from power plants.
The EPA already proposed the first standards—for future power plants. Now, the EPA has released proposed
standards limiting existing power plant carbon pollution. After a public comment period and adjustments, if
needed, those standards are to be finalized by 2015.
Curbing Carbon Pollution: a Partnership Between Utilities and States and EPA
The proposed standards are an opportunity to put states –like Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Arkansas and
Colorado—right at the forefront. That’s because the Clean Air Act directs EPA to issue a guideline setting out the
overall pollution reduction target, and provides that states are in the lead to develop plans for achieving it.
3|P a g e
Action Sheet, May 2014
Using the Clean Air Act to set state-specific standards cutting carbon pollution gives states the flexibility to design
their own plan for meeting the standard in the cheapest way possible. EPA guidelines will deliver big reductions at
a low cost with big benefits. For example, we could cut carbon pollution by 26 percent by 2020 and deliver $15 of
benefits for every dollar invested. States can do this right. Or they can do it wrong.
Because the CO2 emissions we create today and in the future will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds and
thousands of years, burning cleaner fossil fuels won’t change the eventual outcome if we keep burning them until
their inventory is used up.
Doing it right means seizing the bull by the horns and working with utilities in each state to meet the EPA standards
in a way that puts each state on an irreversible path towards rapid and steadily declining CO2 emission reductions.
They could work to change their energy mix, ramp up energy efficiency, implement new technology and expand
renewable sources of energy. Creating local jobs through such steps would improve their communities. The best
policies would maximize conservation, efficiency and renewables, and use cleaner fossil fuels as a temporary way
to ensure adequate electricity.
Doing it wrong would mean denying the need for sensible carbon pollution standards to begin with, or meeting
them only by switching to natural gas, for example, or sloughing off the responsibility for meeting them to
Washington. We all know that getting ahead of the curve is far better than fighting a rear guard action.
So, we’re at another critical moment.
The time is now to start building support in the states for taking action on climate change. The EPA carbon
standards may not be on the radar for many state leaders and thought leaders. But you can help put it there.
Certainly, the destruction and hardship from extreme weather is something many in the states have seen and felt
firsthand. Now we must engage state leaders on addressing climate change. States have an opportunity to do it
their way. They need to do it to choose the most cost-effective path that’s right for them. They need to do it to
protect future generations who will live in their states. They need to do it for our children.
4|P a g e
Action Sheet, May 2014