December, 15 2014, 11:30am EDT
Greenhouse Gas Increases Are Leading to a Faster Rate of Global Warming
New Worldwatch Institute analysis examines trends in greenhouse gas emissions and reduction efforts
WASHINGTON
According to the most recent estimates, 2014 emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main contributor to global climate change, are projected to be 2.5 percent higher than 2013 levels, which translates into the release of 37 billion additional tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. As negotiators wrap up their talks at the international climate conference in Lima, Peru, there is no indication that this trend will change soon. Scientists estimate that future emissions should not exceed 1,200 billion tons of CO2, in order to keep Earth's temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius and to avoid severe and irreversible environmental effects. Yet at the current rate of emissions, this remaining "quota" would be used up in less than a generation, writes Joel Stronberg, contributing author for the Worldwatch Institute's (www.worldwatch.org) Vital Signs Online.
As in 2013, the primary emitters in 2014 from the combustion of fossil fuels are expected to be China (28 percent), the United States (14 percent), the European Union (10 percent), and India (7 percent). In emissions per person, however, the United States ranks first with more than twice the per capita emissions of China, ranked second. There is a continued geographic shift in emissions from industrialized to developing countries.
The three other major greenhouse gases responsible for climate change are methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Natural gas production and agriculture are major contributors of methane, a super-potent gas that traps 86 times the heat of CO2. Satellite photos show that methane leakage from the drilling and pipeline delivery of natural gas offsets any CO2 benefits that natural gas may bring over coal during combustion and use.
Energy supply, industrial processes, forestry, agriculture, and transportation account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. An expanding world population and the growth of developing-country economies contribute to the rising slope of emissions. And deforestation not only generates carbon emissions from the burning of forest residues, but also reduces the capacity of forests to capture carbon. Flattening the emissions curve to slow the rate of global climate change requires increasing the efficiency of energy production, transmission, and consumption; switching to renewable energy sources for electricity generation and transportation; and using non-fossil-fuel-based feedstocks for chemical production, among other actions.
Efforts to meet previously established climate goals have failed for a variety of reasons, including the falling prices of coal, natural gas, and petroleum due to changed global economic conditions, and the increasing supplies of oil and natural gas available through hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The slowdown in global economic growth and a movement toward austerity measures has led some industrialized nations to limit or consider limiting their near-term support for clean energy alternatives, particularly given currently depressed fossil fuel prices.
Although rising greenhouse gas emissions may be an intractable problem in the near term, the means to significantly reduce both emissions and the rate of climate change are available. The rapidly falling costs of clean energy alternatives such as solar and wind power reduce the need for government subsidies to make them competitive with fossil fuels. Innovative financing mechanisms are making solar systems more accessible to consumers everywhere. New storage technologies help address the problem of intermittency of wind and solar power. Particularly in remote areas of developing countries, mini- and micro-grids can be deployed more rapidly than building or expanding a centralized electric grid. And at the corporate level, companies worldwide are committing publicly to increasing their investments in de-carbonization and reducing their carbon footprints.
Increasingly, the world has the means to achieve the needed emissions reductions. Whether or not the delegates to the 2015 climate conference in Paris can agree on a global accord, individuals, corporations, and national and subnational governments are showing greater willingness to take some needed actions. The important question is, will the required steps be taken rapidly enough to avoid crossing the 2 degrees Celsius threshold?
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
LATEST NEWS
Pesticide Scorecard Exposes Which Food Retailers Are Failing Bees
"Under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," said one climate advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
A report released Tuesday from the environmental group Friends of the Earth finds that the U.S. food retail sector's use of pesticides on just four crops—almonds, apples, soy, and corn—could result in over $200 billion worth of financial, climate, and biodiversity risks for the industry between 2024 and 2050. Pollinators, including bees, form a crucial link between pesticide use and these risks.
The report was released in tandem with the group's annual retailer scorecard, which ranks the largest U.S. grocery stores on the "steps they are taking to address the use of toxic pesticides in their supply chains and to support the expansion of organic agriculture and other ecological solutions."
While it highlights some industry leadership on this issue, the authors of the scorecard say that, on the whole, retailer action to curb the impact of pesticides falls short. The following retailers received an "F" grade from Friends of the Earth: Wakefern, Publix, Dollar General, 7-Eleven Inc., Hy-Vee, Walgreens, H-E-B, BJ's, Amazon, and Wegmans.
Although its owner, Amazon, received an F grade, the grocery store Whole Foods was the only retailer that was given an A grade.
A handful of the companies, including Whole Foods, have made time bound pledges to address pesticide use by requiring fresh produce suppliers to adopt ecological farming methods and to confirm their practices through third-party verifications. Eight companies have created policies that encourage suppliers to reduce the use of "pesticides of concern—including neonicotinoids, organophosphates, and glyphosate—and to shift to least-toxic approaches," according to the scorecard.
Friends of the Earth's report on risks associated with pesticide use explains why scrutiny around retailers' use of pesticides is warranted, and why retailers themselves ought to be motivated to reduce these risks.
For one thing, "under the incoming Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency will likely do even less to mitigate the damage of pesticides, putting even more onus on companies to address the escalating risks," according to Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth.
"Food retailers must urgently reduce their use of pesticides and advance organic and other ecologically regenerative approaches. They have the opportunity to lead in the fight against biodiversity collapse and climate change, helping to ensure Americans have continued access to healthy food," she said in a statement.
An estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures, according to the report. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems.
According to the report, an estimated one-third of world crops rely on pollination, and a little less than three-fourths of fruit and vegetable crops require pollination from insects and other creatures. Pollinators are often studied as an indicator for biodiversity risk and general environmental health—and experts cite pesticides as among the reasons that pollinators are in decline, per the report. Research also shows that pesticides poise a threat to healthy soil ecosystems, the report states.
The report states that 89% of the almond crop area, 72% of apples, 100% of corn, and 40% of soy receives more than one "lethal dose" of an insecticide that is considered toxic to bees. This "quantification of the risk of pesticides to pollinators" for the four crops "provides the values to conduct the financial analysis in this study."
The document details how the food retail industry's use of pesticides creates direct costs for the industry—for example, the money spent purchasing and applying the pesticides, the CO2 emissions associated with using or producing pesticides, and the impact on crop yields, as well as indirect costs.
When it comes to climate damage costs, the report estimates that U.S. food retailer sales for products that include soy, corn, apples, and almonds will suffer $4.5 billion over the period of 2024-50. Biodiversity risk stemming from using pollinator-harming pesticides on those four crops is valued much higher, at $34.3 billion, over the same time period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arctic Tundra Has Turned From 'Carbon Sink to Carbon Source' in Dangerous Flip: NOAA
"This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution," said one scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Permafrost in the Arctic has stored carbon dioxide for millennia, but the annual Arctic Report Card released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a concerning shift linked to planetary heating and a rising number of wildfires in the icy region: The tundra is now emitting more carbon than it is storing.
The report card revealed that over the last year, the tundra's temperature rose to its second-highest level on record, causing the frozen soil to melt.
The melting of the permafrost activates microbes in the soil which decompose the trapped carbon, causing it to be released into the atmosphere as planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane.
The release of fossil fuels from the permafrost is also being caused by increased Arctic wildfires, which have emitted an average of 207 million tons of carbon per year since 2003.
"Our observations now show that the Arctic tundra, which is experiencing warming and increased wildfire, is now emitting more carbon than it stores, which will worsen climate change impacts," said Rick Spinrad, administrator of NOAA. "This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution."
Sue Natali, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts and one of 97 international scientists who contributed to the Arctic Report Card, told NPR that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon are still being stored in the tundra—suggesting that the continued warming of the permafrost could make it a huge source of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions.
Along with the "Arctic tundra transformation from carbon sink to carbon source," NOAA reported declines in caribou herds and increasing winter precipitation.
The report card showed that the autumn of 2023 and summer of 2024 saw the second- and third-warmest temperatures on record across the Arctic, and a heatwave in August 2024 set an all-time record for daily temperatures in several communities in northern Alaska and Canada.
The last nine years have been the nine warmest on record in the Arctic region.
"Many of the Arctic's vital signs that we track are either setting or flirting with record-high or record-low values nearly every year," said Gerald (J.J.) Frost, a senior scientist with Alaska Biological Research, Inc. and a veteran Arctic Report Card author. "This is an indication that recent extreme years are the result of long-term, persistent changes, and not the result of variability in the climate system."
Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that the continuous release of fossil fuel emissions from oil and gas extraction and other pollution has caused the Arctic to warm at a faster rate than the Earth as a whole over the past 11 years.
"These combined changes are contributing to worsening wildfires and thawing permafrost to an extent so historic that it caused the Arctic to be a net carbon source after millennia serving as a net carbon storage region," said Ekwurzel. "If this becomes a consistent trend, it will further increase climate change globally."
The Arctic Report Card was released weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. Trump has pledged to slash climate regulations introduced by the Biden administration and to increase oil and gas production. He has mused that sea-level rise will create "more oceanfront property" and has called the climate crisis a "hoax," while his nominee for energy secretary, Chris Wright, the CEO of the fracking company Liberty Energy, has claimed that climate warming is good for the planet.
"These sobering impacts in the Arctic are one more manifestation of how policymakers in the United States and around the world are continuing to prioritize the profits of fossil fuel polluters over the well-being of people and the planet and putting the goals of the Paris climate agreement in peril," said Ekwurzel. "All countries, but especially wealthy, high-emitting nations, need to drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions at a rapid pace in accord with the latest science and aid in efforts of climate-vulnerable communities to prepare for what's to come and help lower-resourced countries working to decrease emissions too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular