Climate Change Reality for the United States

Source: http://www.4cleanfuels.com/fuels4.php

Written by Nathaniel Berger

During the past several years, the United States has experience numerous events of extreme weather patterns ranging from massive wildfires in Colorado to the 4th warmest winter in U.S. history.[1] Many parts of the country experienced seventy degree days in December.

Ninety-seven percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real.[2] However, the remaining 3% of scientists are quite loud in their efforts to deny climate change. Those who deny the occurrence of climate change take the scientific truth, and mislead, deny, and suppress it so much that little progress can be made. The media further exacerbate the problem when they give each side equal air time, insinuating whether intentionally or not, that these messages are both equally supported and valid.

However, despite the 3% of scientists’ denial, climate change is happening, and the U.S. needs to do its part to lower carbon emissions. The European Union and many other nations around the world have made pledges through the Kyoto Protocol and other initiatives to lower carbon emissions through renewable energy creation, carbon offsets, and more. Germany’s solar energy accounts for nearly a 1/3 of the nation’s energy.[3]

Unfortunately, the U.S. has not embarked on such a serious renewable energy path, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol or even establish a national energy policy. While many states have set forth renewable energy standards, these acts are insufficient as the U.S. is one of the top carbon emitters.

Despite the minimal efforts made in the United States to reduce carbon emissions, the U.S. experienced the lowest carbon emissions in 20 years in the first half of 2012.[4] Many are claiming that the U.S. has finally decided to truly work to reduce carbon emissions. Sadly, I think that these people are far too optimistic. Few scientists actually think that these reductions in carbon emissions will last.

When the CO2 emissions reductions were analyzed, researchers found that 43% of the decline was a result of the mild winter that much of the U.S. experienced, 21% of the decline was attributed to coal-to-gas generation, and only a measly 6% was left for increased wind generation.[5] In terms of weather conditions, the mild winter is not likely to be a recurring theme in coming years, and even if it is, it will likely bring with it increasingly hot summers that will require more energy consumption through increased air conditioning.

While natural gas usage has increased significantly, the switch to natural gas is only a temporary fix for carbon emissions. First, the switch to natural gas is largely a result of economic factors that have resulted in shockingly low natural gas prices. According to Michael McElroy, Professor of Environmental Studies at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the impact of the decreased price of natural gas was most prevalent in the East South Central and South Atlantic regions of the U.S. because those regions have the highest level of electricity generation from coal.[6] Few economists expect these low prices to remain long term, which may result in a small comeback of coal. However, McElroy does argue that if the United States wanted to continue to economically impact the relative price of electricity generation between coal and natural gas, a carbon tax of only $5 per ton of CO2 would make a significant difference in electricity generation. The U.S. would save 31 million tons of CO2, and the price of electricity would rise only minimally.[7] I think this solution is perfectly reasonable especially when one considers our growing national debt. However, it is unlikely to be part of any tax reform due to the unwillingness of major political figures to put the environment and climate change on their political agendas.

Second, natural gas brings its own environmental impacts. Natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing is associated with water contamination and earthquakes. Many states such as, Ohio and Pennsylvania, are already noticing some of these impacts. Because of the fast-paced nature of the industry, it has been difficult for many states to develop the regulatory system fast enough to keep up with the production goals of companies interested in hydraulic fracturing. North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources has worked to assess the potential impacts. Currently, they are recommending that with the proper guidelines and safety regulations that hydraulic fracturing can occur safely with minimal environmental impact. The only problem is that they are still unsure of what the potential impacts are, the size of those impacts, and how quickly they may impact human health.[8]

Natural gas will not lower carbon emissions sufficiently to prevent continued climate change. It has a different set of problems from coal, but it has problems all the same. Therefore, it is only one part of the solution to climate change. It should not be seen as the end all be all. Therefore, it is vital for people to only see natural gas as a transition fuel from coal to renewable energy. People need to remember that renewable energy means that we can never run out. No one can say that about coal or even natural gas. Renewable energy is the only long-term way to reduce carbon emissions before the impacts of climate change become more extreme, and people are less able to adapt. Renewable energy is also economically crucial to the United States. Renewable energy technology is the technology of the future. If the United States wants to maintain at the forefront of the world economy, it will have to invest in renewable energy. And, if we want to maintain the world, we need to transition to renewable energy sooner rather than later.



[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/extreme-weather-climate-timeline-infographic_n_1861334.html

[2] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.UFkdQY45s21

[4] http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/a-20-year-low-in-u-s-carbon-emissions/

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/14/why-the-recent-plunge-in-u-s-carbon-emissions-may-not-last/

[6] http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/carbon-emissions-natural-gas

[7] http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/carbon-emissions-natural-gas

[8] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/how-natural-gas-works.html

4 Comments

  1. cmk26@duke.edu

    I am very impressed with your analysis of the reality of climate change for the United States. It is hard to grasp that in 2012, 3% of scientists are still arguing that the climate is not changing. You do an excellent job of pointing this statistic out to your readers, and recognizing that the media continues to exacerbate this 3% versus 97% statistic. I agree with your stance that the United States needs to catch up with other nations such as Germany, and I think you provide clear, supportive citations to get your point across. Renewable energy technology is hopefully going to be a large part of the United State’s future, so I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post and your opinions!

  2. Lauren

    I concur with your recommendation to switch to renewables, and to make the transition sooner than later. I like how you mention the extreme weather patterns which are very potent implications that we ourselves have directly experienced to evidence and justify your claim that global warming exists. I agree that at a Federal level, our government has not adopted a plan that emphasizes renewable energy use and this is namely due to our reactive political infrastructure that rewards short term economic benefits over long-term environmental ones. Your statement “we can NEVER run out of renewable” is something that I think people are remiss in not highlighting and it definitely emphasizes the magnitude of the benefits of transitioning to these different energies. The two things I would love to further explore after reading your blog is the evolution of a “green revolution” that is a culturally significant shift in our nation’s mentality surrounding environmental policy. Also, the price of switching to renewables while the technology is at a nascent stage might be too high now while it could be cheaper later, which could advocate and incentivize people and industries to make the shift. This topic is critical and very timely and it made me want to read and learn more!

  3. acd17@duke.edu

    “Renewable energy is the only long-term way to reduce carbon emissions before the impacts of climate change become more extreme, and people are less able to adapt.”

    I would argue that this statement is true but incomplete – renewable energy alone won’t reduce emissions fast enough. Many experts would say that the answer lies in a concerted effort of policies that have as their capstone a renewable energy mandate in combination with an emissions reduction plan. The former requires a certain percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources by a given date; the latter decreases emissions by either specifying the emissions permissible or making it more expensive to emit carbon pollution. The emissions reduction plan could be achieved by command-and-control regulation, a cap-and-trade program, or a carbon tax. The two are needed in concert to create lasting change in the energy systems in the US.

    This one-two punch of a policy was manifest in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) in 2009, which focused on a cap-and-trade system coupled with a 25% by 2025 renewable energy standard. The bill passed the House, but died in committee in the Senate, and the idea of cap-and-trade has become a political non-starter. However, a carbon tax is likely to be brought up next year as a part of tax reform as an idea attractive to conservatives – concerned about the budget deficit or wanting to ease the tax burden on citizens – and environmentalists alike.

  4. ten6@duke.edu

    Though there are many problems we face with climate change and our choices as far as where we get our energy and how we use it, I believe the answer is a two step approach. 1) Make available clean(er) ways of acquiring energy. 2) Give people a reason to use them. As you may see day-to-day in your dorm, maybe with a roommate or in the bathroom, people like to leave lights on and water running and there is not much you can do to get them to stop (sidenote: it always astounds me at places like universities or public buildings the number of lights that are kept on all day–even when no one is there–to maintain the “image” of the building). On the other hand, when I go home I get yelled at by my dad if I leave the lights on, not because he is exceptionally environmentally conscious, but because he is exceptionally conscious of the bill he pays every week to our energy provider. If we give people incentives (or even disincentives like carbon taxes) to use less energy, the majority of middle and lower class americans looking to save money will do so. The magic happens when the government provides incentives not only to reduce energy use, but to use a cleaner energy in that reduced use. In Asheville (the hippie town im from) you’ll find many people making money off of solar panels they have installed–not just lowering the electric bill but actually making money. While this isnt feasible for everyone because solar panels necessitate a huge initial investment and take many years before money made will recoup that investment, we will get there if we keep on trying.

Leave a Reply