February 3, 2014
Julie Rohde
On the night that millions of Americans in the Southeast were hit with the snowstorm of the decade, President Obama addressed the nation: “Climate change is a fact.” Winter Storm Leon (as named by the Weather Channel) wreaked havoc in a part of the nation that rarely experiences this level of extreme winter weather. Horror stories of people trapped in their cars in Atlanta, Georgia took over national news headlines. Perhaps Atlanta and other southern cities were ill prepared for this disastrous weather, but nonetheless, this type of weather is atypical for this part of the country.
http://img2-2.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/sandbox/news/140210/weather/traffick-600×450.jpg
Unfortunately, extreme weather patterns are no longer uncommon in many parts of the nation. From cases of severe drought in the Midwest to the decimation caused by Hurricane Sandy in the North East and the greater frequency of tornado occurrences- scientists are claiming that many of these events are human induced. In September 2013, NOAA published a report titled, “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective”. The report cites several examples of extreme weather patterns and attributes the changes in climate to human activity. Specifically, scientists explored the high July 2012 temperatures of the Midwest in relation to decreased precipitation and increased solar radiation. Carbon emissions and inefficient land use have contributed to the temperature changes experienced in this part of the nation.
In regards to climate change, President Obama was very blatant in discussing the urgency of a safer environment for future generations. His brief recommendations include stronger regulation of carbon emissions and innovative technology to support sustainable energy sources. In order for this sense of urgency to resonate with the American people and a very polarized congress, Obama used the protection of future generations as a motivating factor. He stated, “And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.” This quote simply explains that it is imperative for our generation to limit the footprint we leave behind for our children. Every person is responsible for how their actions shape the climate and environment.
source: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/AP_state_union10_ml_140128_16x9_992.jpg
Finding or creating alternative and sustainable energy sources is one of the largest factors in reversing climate change that is induced by human action. Our national dependence on fossil fuels has caused complete decimation of ecosystems and the burning of these fuels contributes to ozone pollution. I believe there are two main entities that hold responsibility in expediting the process of finding innovative energy sources.
First, the United States military is arguably the most crucial stakeholder in alternative energy sources. From a tactical perspective, the increased frequency of natural disasters puts a significant strain on national security. As the military has become more responsible for first response aid work, they have a stake in preventing huge natural disasters. If alternative energy sources could limit extreme weather patterns that are exacerbated by carbon emissions, the military has an incentive to investigate these alternatives. Furthermore, the oil industry is still largely concentrated on international grounds with unstable governments. National security also becomes a concern in international oil trade. The military would like to prevent overseas conflicts caused by oil dependence. With the current adequate funding and elite research teams within the military, the race to find alternative energy could likely reside in military efforts.
The second main entity that will be responsible for innovative energy technology is university institutions. Similar to the military, elite American universities are equipped with research facilities and faculty who are passionate about climate change. Competition between universities will create a market incentive for the best alternative energy source. A tool that could be helpful in accelerating this process would be a competition with a lump sum prize. Something like the Google X-Prize foundation, which offers $30 million for the development of a spacecraft to explore the surface of the moon, could benefit the energy industry. In fact, President Obama’s State of the Union addressed the use of Google and other corporations in aiding the implementation of innovative technologies.
How many more disastrous weather storms will it take for climate change to become a top priority in the United States? Some progress has been made to alleviate climate change. However, the current climate action agenda is very limiting. Our current energy situation must change! In order to protect our future generations as Obama has prompted us to do, the US military and America’s universities will be the primary agents in discovering alternative energy sources.
Sources:
http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/prize-details/why-google-lunar-xprize
As a Missourian, I’ve definitely noticed much more drastic differences in weather between winter and summer lately. While I agree that the military and universities will most likely be the ones to lead a revolution in energy technology, I don’t think the movement will get far until solar power can be harnessed and distributed efficiently and cheaply in mass quantities. As of right now, I think the amount of energy that could be potentially captured by the sun is one of the best sources of energy available to humans if we could perfect the technology. In fact this is even one of the 14 Grand Challenges that National Academy of Engineers (NAE) has listed as its priority aims. Hopefully, President Obama’s sense of urgency will indeed speed up the process.
Julie,
I entirely agree with the urgency you attach to reducing carbon emissions in order to mitigate global climate change. One of the really great things your post does is call attention to the immediacy of climate change’s effects on the average citizen both now and in the future. However, I disagree with your perception of who the major game changers are in this endeavor. That is to say, the military and universities can be part of the answer, but I believe that the private sector is a better outlet both in regard to feasibility and quickness of innovation/implementation given the right conditions.
I consider the bottom line regarding the United State’s large neglect for regulating carbon emissions to be in the uneven playing field for private industries within the context of highly subsidized oil and gas conglomerates. Take a look at this statistic:
“According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry
received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918
through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received
just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009.”
Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, argues for a possible remedy to this disparity—a carbon cap-and trade system putting a limit and price tag on carbon emissions. This model would reward sustainable technology, create level playing fields for start-ups, and enable the market, rather than the government, to choose winners and losers. (His book, Earth the Sequel, is a little outdated but it’s a good read following the progress of several start-ups in renewable energy).
You point out incentives like the Google X-Prize to bolster university research—I think it’s worth noting that Google, in all of its success, is a private industry. The distinction I do want to make, however, is that universities and the military may be a vital component of augmenting renewable energy technologies, but only if they do so in partnership with the larger private industry framework under friendlier government policy.
Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/03/12/56240/meet-the-new-oil-tax-breaks-same-as-the-old-oil-tax-breaks/
I was really interested by your post, particularly your analysis of the military’s stake in climate change prevention. It would be interesting to see the results if we allocated even part of the funds that go towards weapon development towards renewable energy—essentially attacking a major component of many of our international conflicts at its root.
As for an increase in natural disasters, it is clearly in the interest of the military to try and prevent this. However, I continue to hope that such disasters will encourage not only the military, but also the PUBLIC, to take action. We have seen time and time again that the public can mobilize quickly in the face of fear. So far, it seems that scientific reports and political statements regarding the consequences of climate change have done little to incite a widespread reaction. It may take the realities of storms and sea level rise to force our society to accept the truth of climate change and to finally initiate basic lifestyle changes. Although I like to believe that a top-down approach would be possible, from a political standpoint, climate change, and efforts to combat it, must gain a greater salience in the public sphere before any major national initiative will likely take place.
As a member of Navy ROTC, I like how you called on the military to take a lead in finding solutions to combat climate change. While it is true the military uses an enormous amount of fossil fuels, it is also willing and capable to find new technologies. Recently, the Naval Research Lab announced it had successfully managed to convert seawater into fuel that can potentially be used to power jets [1]. Innovations such as these come along frequently within the military due to its vast budget and facilities. Due to our national interest in energy sources, I hope to see the military pursuing more research into climate-friendly fuel sources.
Sources:
[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/10/game-changer-us-navy-can-now-turn-seawater-jet-fue/