As early as the beginning of the 19th century, over 200 years ago, scientists recognized that the atmosphere may be capable of trapping heat. Joseph Fourier, a French natural philosopher and mathematician hypothesized that there was a link between certain gases and the temperature of the earth, when the concentrations were lower the planet was cooler and when higher, warmer.
He was an avid mountaineer and familiar with glaciers and the scars they left from their grinding away the surface. He was likely the first to speculate that the earth may have been much colder and hence covered with much more ice in the distant past. Simultaneously he posited that earth could likewise be much hotter under other conditions.
In the 1859 an Irish physicist, John Tyndall, was studying invisible “heat rays” now known as infrared radiation. He was the first to recognize that the gases Carbon Dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere are capable of trapping heat and therefore their presence, even at low concentration, can impact the temperature of the air.
Probably most important in the history of global warming and climate change is the work of Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist . He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1903. The prize was awarded for his work in understanding certain features of chemical reactions and especially for his mathematical treatment of the rates of reactions. Basically he was the first to quantify the speed of chemical reactions.
Less well known at the time was his work examining the impact of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and the climate. In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” His work went beyond that of his predecessors by mathematically modeling the impact of varying amounts Carbon Dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere.
As crude as his tools of the time were, he did make the connection that more Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would result in an elevation of the earth’s surface temperature. He also pointed out that burning fossil fuels would serve to raise the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
Flash forward to the 1950s. Professor Charles Keeling began recording the concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere first at Antarctica and then in 1958 at Mona Loa observatory in Hawaii. The data collection continues to this day and is now know as the Keeling curve. The simultaneous observation of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and rising global temperature began the modern era of the recognition of anthropogenically driven global warming.
We also know that more than the temperature of the planet is at risk. Much of the Carbon Dioxide emitted from burning fossils fuels, about 30 %, does not remain in the atmosphere but is absorbed in the oceans, causing acidification.
The threat of global warming, climate change and ocean acidification have long been known. These threats are not a Chinese hoax but rather an existential threat to much of the life on this planet.
If one sentence could encapsulate the Trump administration’s approach the environment it would be “ Modern air is a little too clean for optimum health.” This is a statement made by Robert Phalen, a Trump appointee to the Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and his minions seem to be working to reverse the work of the previous decades in protecting the environment and the health of the planet.
Although much of his effort has been focused on reversing Obama era regulations, the focus is actually much broader. Fossil fuels producers and various and sundry extractive industries are favored without the burdensome regulations meant to protect our health and the environment.
In 2007 during the Bush presidency, the supreme court ruled that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and the EPA has the responsibility to regulate it. CO2 is the major greenhouse gas driving climate change. And what is Trump’s response? He appointed Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier, to head the EPA.
Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords, an agreement among every country on the planet that recognizes the reality of anthropogenic global warming. This can’t be overstated. Every single country, besides us, be they capitalist, communist, socialist, monarchy, or whatever agree that actions must be taken to prevent or at least mitigate climate change caused by global warming. Everybody but us. Every scientific body including those in the United States. Friends and enemies alike, every single government, but us.
President Obama created the Clean Power Plan, meant to gradually but substantially wean us off the use of fossil fuels in electrical power generation. In October Trump proposed repealing the clean power plan in favor of increased use of coal. Ironically deregulating the use of coal will most likely have no effect to “bring back coal” because it is economics, not regulations, that has caused such a decline in its use. They will, however, have the effect of delaying the development of sustainable energy production from wind and solar.
Trump has also proposed a repeal of the methane rule. Methane, otherwise known as natural gas is a potent greenhouse gas in its own right. The methane rule was meant to tighten regulations concerning its release to the atmosphere during production and distribution. Sadly, it is cheaper to be sloppy and allow fugitive emissions that contribute to global warming.
In what must be one of the worst-timed deregulatory actions, Trump repealed a construction standard meant to reduce damage from flooding only days before the worst flooding ever in the Huston area. The standard would have added less than 1 % to the costs of construction in flood-prone areas but saved much in the long run.
One accounting suggests the Trump has repealed or rolled back 60 different rules that protect our health and the environment. These actions are out of step with most Americans. Polling consistently shows that three-quarters of the electorate favor increased environmental protection whereas less than a quarter feel the current efforts to protect the environment have gone too far.
As we slide in to summer or as some call it “tick time,” it might be important to focus on the tick part. We’ve had a mild winter so at least in Bullfrog Valley we have had ticks active year round. There are five species of ticks found in Arkansas most of which are capable of carrying various pathogens and now the new risk of alpha-Gal. Stay tuned for more on tick induced problems.
Regardless of species all ticks go through four phases: Egg, larva, nymph, and adult. The total life cycle can range from one to three years depending on species and environmental conditions. Adult ticks have eight legs and are classified as arachnids, related to mites and spiders.
A tick, like every other form of life begins as an egg. Ticks hatch in the spring to become six-legged larvae. All stages of all species require blood meals from any of a variety of birds, small and large mammals including you and me, and North America’s only marsupial – the Opossum. For the larval tick, the blood meal is usually obtained from more accessible small mammals like mice. After the blood meal they morph into to the nymph stage. The larva will only eat one meal. This means that this stage of a tick cannot transmit disease, because it must eat first to be exposed.
The nymph of the deer tick more formally known as the black-legged tick, will then overwinter in a dormant stage. In the spring when the air temperature gets about 10 degrees Celsius the nymphs become active. If a deer tick larva fed on an alternate host which was infected, the nymph becomes capable of transmitting any of the several diseases: Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Erlichiosis, and others. The nymph then molts and becomes an adult. Only the female adult will now take a blood meal and be capable of disease transmission. After feeding she mates, lays eggs and dies.
As an aside, you would be advised to not run over those possums on the road as they are a principal tick vacuum plus they are a poor reservoirs for disease. One study found the average possum carried around 200 ticks at any one time and were capable of killing 4000 ticks a week. Even if bitten, possums are unlikely to become infected with disease vectors, so larva or nymph which fed on a possum is unlikely to become a vector itself.
If you are not creeped out already to hear of all the tick born diseases, there is a new concern on the rise, alpha-Gal induced meat allergy spread by the lone star tick. Alpha-Gal is present in the meat of all mammals except primates thus humans. If a lone star tick nymph feeds on a deer or mouse, then the adult feeds on on a human, it can transmit enough alpha-Gal to induce a delayed immune reaction. Later consumption of meat by the inoculated individual can induce a range of symptoms including itching, hives, digestive upset and even life threatening anaphylaxis. In extreme cases even diary products can induce a reaction.
Only the lone star tick most common in the Southeast US causes this problem. It is a growing problem, possibly due to burgeoning populations of deer and/or global warming. The allergy is rather new to science, so it is not known whether the allergy becomes a static life long condition or waxes or wanes over time.
It is now clear now that the current administration has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for specious reasons. Trump will take us off the world stage, away from 195 countries who do recognize the risks of ignoring global warming, ocean acidification, and climate change.
Global warming as a concept is not new. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate wrote in 1896 on the risks of continued burning of fossil fuels and the resultant accumulation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)in the atmosphere. [On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground] The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been stable stable for hundreds of thousands of years – under 300 parts per million (PPM). In under 200 years we have raised the concentration to the current value of over 400 PPM, 150% of the value at the start of the industrial revolution.
Despite the relatively simple physical principals involved and despite the evidence from air and water temperatures, rising sea levels, and melting ice President Trump still thinks that global warming is a hoax. He seems fixated on the idea that developing sustainable energy supplies will drag our economy down. Is there evidence of such?
Very simply -No. Germany has installed more solar photovoltaic energy systems per capita than any other country, yet they are running a trade surplus with the United States. On a good day Denmark can produce 100 % of its energy from wind turbines and runs a considerable trade surplus with the United States. Ironically, much of their surplus involves selling wind turbine technology to us. We do have a small industry manufacturing wind turbine blades, but the company is Danish. China has leapt to the head of the pack for producing solar panels and we all know about their trade imbalance.
What do the captains of industry here think? Big fossil fuel producers such as Exxon-Mobil support the agreement. Even coal companies support the agreement. Walmart supports the agreement. Of course forward looking companies like Alphabet, the parent company of Google, Apple, Tesla support the agreement. Polls shows that the majority of Americans in every state, across the political spectrum support the agreement.
The agreement that we are walking away from is first and foremost voluntary. The agreement would in no way allow foreign influence of our laws or sovereignty. The agreement calls for international goals for reducing the rate of global warming by reducing the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
The US goal was a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 27 % of 2005 emissions by 2025. This is doable with a combination of energy efficiency, sustainable technologies such as wind and solar and switching from carbon intensive coal to natural gas. These changes to our economy are already underway and by participating in the agreement we show the world that we care about collective actions for all humanity, even for all life on this planet.
By not joining the agreement we turn away from 195 countries and join with Syria, torn by a violent civil war, and Nicaragua, who thinks the agreement doesn’t go far enough.
Environmental services is not only a name for numerous companies that provide, well, environmental services but also the concept that our environment provides many services to humanity. Also called ecosystems services, these range from the obvious such as recreation and food to the not so obvious but critical – regulation of the climate. Because of the burgeoning human population and the ever increasing use of fossil energy sources, these services are being taxed like never before.
The importance of climate stability is in the news daily for those willing to pay attention. The trend for decades has been that every year is warmer than the last, glaciers and polar ice are melting at an alarming rate and sea levels are rising (three-quarters of the world’ megacities are coastal.) Less commonly addressed are some physical changes occurring in the oceans.
The oceans provide half the people in the world with their principal source of protein. Ocean fisheries provide sixteen percent of all protein consumed by humans. These food sources are under threat and the threat can turn into collapse (of fisheries for example) frighteningly fast. This has been shown already due to overfishing.
The grand banks off the coast of Newfoundland had been the world’s premier cod fishery. Europeans may have fished the site even before European settlement, but surely by the sixteenth century. Hundred’s of millions of tons of cod were taken over the centuries, a supply thought to be inexhaustible. In the late fifties, fisheries managers began to grown concerned. In 1968 the catch had dropped to just under a million tons. Just six years later it was down to under fifty thousand tons. The Grand Banks are now closed to international fishing. In a couple of decades, the blink of an eye in terms of human populations, the world went from “inexhaustible” to gone.
Conceivably other fisheries can be managed or at least one would hope. It is also hoped that burning fossil fuels can be managed, but there is little sign of that happening here in the United States. Two factors negatively impact ocean fisheries due to burning fossil fuels, heat and acidity. Both these problems have to do with the solubility of gasses in liquids. Unlike solids which are increasingly soluble in liquids, gasses are just the opposite. Atmospheric gasses such as Nitrogen and Oxygen dissolve better in colder water.
Those who fish the streams and lakes of Arkansas know that trout can only survive in cold water. Colder water contains more Oxygen which trout require. Cool water fisheries support species such as smallmouth bass whose Oxygen requirements are less than trout but greater than largemouth bass.
The long and short of it is that as the oceans warm they loose Oxygen which can stresses fish – they are slowly suffocating.
The other ocean problem is the dissolution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which causes acidity. Although CO2 is a gas it reacts with seawater to become carbonic acid. The oceans are now about thirty percent more acidic than at the start of the industrial revolution when burning fossil fuels began in earnest. Coral reefs, the nurseries of the oceans are suffering from damage due to both heat and acidity.
Drum roll please, and the hottest year in recorded history is…wait for it… 2016! Actually this is not so surprising. The previously hottest year in history was 2015, and the next hottest before that 2014. If you think you see a trend there you do.
With the exception of 1998, the 15 hottest years ever occurred in this century. 2016 was 2 degrees hotter than the average of the 20th century. In contrast the last recorded coldest year was in 1911, over a century ago. These records have been recorded in the troposphere, the atmospheric layer closest to the ground. Sea surface temperature measurements are congruent.
The culprits for the heating are anthropogenically generated (man- made) releases of green house gases to the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide causes over half of the radiative forcing so it is the major player but Methane, otherwise known as natural gas is a close second. The concentration of Methane in the atmosphere has recently been spiking and the likely source is fugitive emissions from fracking.
The new president has claimed that his EPA will “protect the environment and human health”; however, he has on numerous occasions called global warming a hoax. He has claimed that because it is cold outside (in the winter of course) that global warming doesn’t exist. He has claimed that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by climate scientists profiting from their research. The only thing making any sense here is that he would see money as the driver for any research outcome.
It’s not just the scientists here in the USA, every scientific body on earth that has addressed the issue agrees, global warming is real and a threat to both the environment and human health. This bears repeating: No scientific body of national or international standing holds a formal opinion denying the reality of global warming.
The actions so far in the new presidency seem to reinforce his prior proclamations. His selection to head the EPA is Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s Attorney General. Attorney General Pruitt has sued the EPA over numerous regulations designed to clean our air and water. He has begrudgingly accepted that it is getting warmer, but questions humanity’s responsibility. Further he questions what if anything we should be doing.
Rick Perry, former governor of Texas and the selection to head the Department of Energy is similarly poorly informed on climate science. Perry has recently softened his stance. Previously he claimed the science of global warming was a “contrived phony mess.” Now he thinks it’s real but efforts to combat it should not cost American jobs. Study after study has shown that there are many more jobs created with sustainable energy over continuing to exploit fossil fuels.
Regulations in the sights of the president include previous efforts of several presidents going back to Jimmy Carter. Look for lifting of the transportation fuel efficiency standards, blocking the clean power plan to regulate power plant emissions, and reduced restrictions on coal mining and use.
Preventing additional accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a zero sum game. You either add or you don’t. Utilizing fossil fuels adds, using sustainable energy supplies such as wind and solar don’t.
It would appear that president-elect Trump thinks our air and our water are too clean and If he is successful we are likely to have less of both (and there is no reason to assume he won’t be successful due to the republican majorities in both houses of congress.)
Oddly, in 2009 he signed a letter along with numerous business leaders to President Obama encouraging him act. “”We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today” … and further “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
Now his pronouncements are just the opposite. In 2010 he said that Al Gore should have his Nobel peace prize revoked because he decided that global warming was a hoax. His evidence du jour was the fact that it was winter and snowing. Later still he expanded on the hoax idea claiming that not only were the world’s scientists conspiring to promote a hoax but apparently doing so at the bidding of the Chinese who invented the hoax in the first place.
So when Trump takes office in January which one will show up ? Will it be the Trump of “catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity …” or the more contemporary Trump of 2015: “it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax.” Some how it is not surprising that Trump sees money as the only motivation.
Based on a few cabinet nominations it looks like the recent Trump will show. Scott Pruitt, nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency is currently the Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma, the politics of which are dominated by the oil and gas industry. In this position he has sued the EPA numerous times to block the EPA from enforcing regulations aimed to protect our air and water. If the Senate approves the nomination, it will mark a sea change at EPA. Every previous administrator at EPA has worked to protect the environment and relied on sound science.
Another critical cabinet position is the Secretary of Energy, currently headed by a theoretical physicist with a PhD, Ernest Moniz. The Energy Department oversees not only our overall energy policy but also controls our nuclear armaments. Trump’s pick is Rick Perry former Governor of Texas and a friend of the fossil fuel industry. In 2008 Perry ran for president. One of his planks was the elimination of the Energy Department. With no small irony, during a debate he was asked to name the departments he intended to eliminate. He only had to remember the names of three departments, but he remembered only two – Energy was not one of them.
Although the mission of the state department is only tangentially related to the environment, Trump’s selection speaks volumes. Nominated for Secretary of State is none other than the CEO of Exxon-Mobile, the world’s largest player in the fossil fuel industry. Rex Tillerson as head of Exxon-Mobile had planned a 500 billion dollar deal with Russia to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic. When Russia annexed Crimea and was implicated in shooting down a commercial airliner over Ukraine, sanctions from the US and other western powers made the artic drilling deal null and void. Mr. Tillerson noted at a news conference in 2015 that he looked forward to lifting the sanctions on Russia. Drill baby Drill.
The votes have been counted and we have a result. Donald Trump will be our next president. For the second time in the last 16 years a Democrat drew more votes than the Republican only to lose to the vote in the electoral college. Secretary Clinton out polled Mr Trump by 2.8+ million votes, more than a 2 % margin.
If President Trump follows through on only a portion of what Candidate Trump said, it will be trying times for the world climate and the environment. Based on his dismissive attitude towards global warming, it is likely that the Paris Accord signed by Obama will be scrapped. World leaders meeting currently in Morocco are constructing the details of how to implement the international law. The objective is to reduce carbon emissions to prevent the temperature of earth from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
Whether he makes a pronouncement to abandon the accord or not, his avowed policy of expanded use of fossil fuels, coal in particular, will make meeting carbon reduction goals impossible. The US has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 27 % compared to 2005 levels. The United States alone is responsible for over 20% of total global carbon emissions, and our target will reduce our share proportionately.
The only thing that may constrain his proposed expansion of the use of coal is economics. Cheap natural gas has undercut the price of electric generation from coal. Burning natural gas to produce electricity produces lower carbon emissions per unit of energy produced, hence replacing coal with natural gas will result in lower emissions.
Inaction has two damaging effects. First, not meeting our goal will seriously impair the attempts to stabilize the climate. The US and China alone account for nearly half of the global warming gasses. For us to not participate means one fifth of the global goal won’t be met.
Not participating also has a profoundly negative impact on international relations. Like it or not we live in a global economy and the only way a global economy works is if we all play by the same rules. Many other international laws protect us through other country’s participation: Whaling, fishing, hazardous waste disposal, illicit drugs, and the list goes on. Do we really want to tell the rest of the world we don’t care?
Meanwhile to our north, Canada will begin taxing carbon as a mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. An initial tax of 7.62 dollars Canadian per metric ton of carbon. At this rate it would add about a dollar to the price of a barrel of crude oil, currently around 44 dollars. Each year until 2022 the price will go up by 7.62 dollars till the tax reaches 38 dollars per ton. All fossil fuels – natural gas, oil and coal will be taxed.
We could do the same, in fact previous republican administrations have called revenue neutral carbon taxes a free enterprise way to manage the cost of pollution.
President Obama recently traveled to the east side of the pacific rim for an official visit to several countries including Vietnam and Japan. Conservatives feel that he has not been strong enough with foreign affairs and have therefore labeled his trip an apology tour, as if he is there to apologize for past wars.
Realistically this trip is not about the past but rather signals a recognition of the future and the importance of trade with some of the emerging economies of the region. In the past the far east has been thought of as the place where American jobs have gone. Cheap labor, and fewer regulations means goods are cheaper to produce. The countries then turn around and sell these cheaper goods back to us.
As these eastern economies expand with production and trade, money is put into the hands of a growing middle class which could mean customers for our labor force.
This brings us to a proposed trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership. It involves 12 pacific rim countries. On the western side are Canada, the United States, Mexico, Peru and Chili; on the east, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Singapore, and Japan. The foreign ministers of all 12 participant nations signed a draft framework for the trade deal which is meant to reduce tariffs and increase free trade among the partners.
Previous legislation has given President Obama “fast track” authority to negotiate trade deals. The TPP like other trade deals require legislative authorization, but the fast track law means that congress can only vote up or down on a trade deal, rather than endlessly amend or modify a deal.
Considerable controversy surrounds the deal. The left feels that it gives large corporations too much power in trade, at the expense of the environment and worker’s rights. The right, well the right just doesn’t like Obama and is reluctant to give him anything that resembles success. The pressure of an election year only adds to the distrust of the two sides.
Those that do favor the deal suggest that no deal means even less protection for the environment and worker’s rights. The simple fact remains that we live in the time of a global economy. Just because we decide not to participate in trade deals doesn’t mean that the world economy halts. Trade will go on and we will have even less influence.
At the end of World War II, we were the last man standing, the only industrialized economy unscathed by war. Then we could command the global economy. That control has slowly been eroding. Europe, Japan, and now China have expanded their economies and are replacing American goods around the world. Increasingly the pacific rim is becoming a player and if we don’t agree to trade, we will be left further behind.