 |
|
MRSC has joined with Phil Olbrechts, Attorney, Ogden Murphy Wallace, Pat Dugan, Dugan Consulting Services, Arthur Sullivan, Program Manager of ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing), and Anindita Mitra, founder of CREÄ Affiliates, LLC, to bring you the "Planning Advisor" article series on planning and growth management issue affecting Washington Local Governments. The "Planning Advisor" will feature a new article each month with timely information and advice you can use.*
The Invisible Player in Climate Change
July 2009
By Anindita Mitra, AICP
CREÄ Affiliates, LLC
Part 1: Making Sense of the Science
If there were any doubts about the effects of climate change in Washington, the recent spate of abnormal weather events surely has removed them from all but the most skeptical minds. These events include the severe and unusually prolonged freezing patterns that paralyzed Puget Sound businesses and institutions in 2007 and 2008; the hurricane level winds that pummeled the Long Beach Peninsula coastline in early 2008; and the record rainfall and flooding that inundated the regions around Centralia in 2007 and the Skagit Valley in 2008.
Similar atypical climate conditions have haunted many other parts of the country causing major disruptions and billions of dollars in damage. The physical damage from these natural disasters has been well-documented in the local print media, online blogs and television. It is no wonder then that both the federal as well as the Washington State Legislatures have been considering new legislation addressing climate change.
There are many aspects that distinguish effective legislation. To name a few, legislation that has been effective in the past very clearly established its focus (and desired change) and considered both its long term as well as its short term impacts. Effective legislation is also based on valid data as well as comprehensive, accurate and balanced analysis.
To date it is unclear whether legislation has accurately reflected the complexities or has been based on comprehensive and balanced analysis of the climate change phenomenon. New policies in this arena must reflect a realistic understanding of which aspects of climate change it hopes to impact: the source of the problem, the catalyst, its symptoms, immediate impacts or final repercussions?
This three-part paper takes on climate change not as inevitable, but as a man-made problem that can be reversed. Part 1 breaks down the complex science behind the climate change phenomena in order to provide a basis for effective policy at all levels of government. By drawing linkages into socio-economic policies it shows how different legislation can affect various aspects of the problem. Part 2 talks about emerging techno-socio-economic trends that offer an opportunity to transform our economies and societies, while tackling the climate change phenomenon at many levels. Part 3 is an overview of a variety of policies and initiatives that could collectively begin to make a difference to our earth's gradual warming.
The message underlying this three-part series is that there is no silver bullet that can single handedly engage and meaningfully affect this rapidly growing problem. It has to be tackled at a number of levels, from a number of perspectives and across a wide spectrum of sectors.
Symptom: Global Warming
For the development of policy targeting global warming and climate change it is important that the science behind these two phenomena is clear. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has been tracked for many decades, it failed to attract much attention until it was irrefutably linked to symptoms of a warming planet. "Global warming" refers to the actual gradual yet steady increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Scientists have now conclusively demonstrated that this increased warming is largely a human-induced phenomenon caused by a steady increase in the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are many naturally occurring gases called Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the earth's atmosphere that help to absorb and re-radiate incoming solar radiation, keeping our earth relatively warm and habitable. GHGs begin to create imbalances if they absorb more and prevent the natural daily cooling of the planet. It is in this light that carbon dioxide (CO2), a GHG, has evolved into a problematic atmospheric gas. Concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has seen the greatest increase over the last 100 years, compounded by the challenge that it takes many centuries (some scientists are estimating between 600-800 years) to dissipate compared to the other gases (methane or nitrous oxide for instance). Therefore the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is an accumulation of hundreds of years of excessive human-generated emissions, and not simply directly correlated to current emissions. This has impeded the atmosphere's ability to cool and has been trapping more warmth than what is considered typical.
Impact: Climate Change
Scientists have observed that one of the impacts of a warming planet has been its slow yet definite effect on global climate patterns, i.e. climate change. Therefore, while the terms climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably, they allude to different aspects of the problem. The change in climate could manifest as extended periods of drought in some parts of the world and increased precipitation in others; increased heat somewhere and falling temperatures elsewhere. However, since the term climate change places greater emphasis on the varied impacts of rising global temperatures, it has gained recently in popularity over use of the term global warming. EPA's definition of climate change is:
"Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:
- natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun;
- natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation);
- human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.)"
The result of this subtle shift is that it diverts the focus of legislation from tracking and affecting the root of the problem to mitigating and managing its repercussions (climate abnormalities and natural disasters).
Outcomes: Natural Catastrophes
For centuries, the effects of global warming have been fairly innocuous. Even climate change was mostly ignored until about 2004-05. There were few policies that addressed these occurrences. In recent years however, global warming and climate change have been catapulted to international attention and discourse as their effects have become more pronounced and their evident strength and persistence have become too obvious to ignore. In Washington State scientists predict changes in the growing season, drier summers and wetter winters. It is anticipated that spring will occur earlier, concomitant with the earlier melting of the state's snow-pack. Higher precipitation, coupled with the early melting of snow-packs may cause more rivers to flood their banks, while leaving little water for summer irrigation. Drier summers are likely to increase the number of forest fires in the state's arboreal forests. Global warming and rising sea temperatures are expected to expedite the melting of arctic ice and raise sea levels inundating large stretches of the state's coastlines. In a study, Munich Re, an international insurance provider found that since 1970, weather related disasters account for about 89% of total insured losses.
Catalyst: Carbon-based Fuel Economy
If global warming is only symptomatic of the growing presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, what has been perpetuating these emission levels? The primary source of carbon dioxide emissions has been the gradual increase in our society's dependence on carbon-based fuels such as oil, gas and coal. Earlier carbon-based fuels such as biomass, diesel and propane also released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. As they were replaced with gas and coal, these fuels contributed more than ever to atmospheric carbon for three main reasons: population growth, a move towards centralized system of power generation and sprawling development patterns.
In 1950, total US population was in the range of 152 million. By 1980 it had increased by about 50% to 227 million and by 2005 another 30% to 296 million; an approximate 100% increase in population from 1950 to 2005. This population increase brought with it a corresponding demand for energy. What is noteworthy is that while per capita fuel use rose faster than population increase till about the 1970s, aggressive federal policies in the 70s reduced the per capita consumption. Therefore, despite the increased mechanization of homes and businesses, annual end-use fuel consumption increased to the same extent as population growth between 1950 and 2005 (by a little more than 100%). With aggressive policies that promote conservation and new technology, the per capita demand for energy can be reduced again such that end-use demand for energy does not rise at the same rate as population growth.
Despite efficient per capita use of energy from 1970-2005, overall demand for fuel for energy production continues to increase exponentially. Corresponding to this increase in the demand for fuel is its evolution from a decentralized to a centralized system of power generating plants. This caused the overall consumption of energy to increase at a faster rate than end-use energy consumption. In 1950 30% of the energy consumed was either sold, or lost in transmission and generation. By 2005 more than 130% of the energy consumed was lost in transmission and generation. With an energy portfolio based so heavily on non-renewable carbon-based fuels, the corresponding increase in the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere is not so surprising. The role of industry in energy demand, which is significant in other countries, has diminished in the US as polices have prompted most industries to move to other countries.
Lastly, the transportation sector saw an even greater increase in end-use energy consumption. In 1950, total energy consumed for transportation was in the range of 7,990,087 billion BTUs; by 2005 this number had increased four-fold to about 28,400,809 billion BTUs. The four-fold increase in transportation fuel surpasses the increase in population during this period. Prompted by sprawling growth patterns apparent from satellite imagery and validated by Census data, and further stimulated by a growing freight and distribution system, the demand for transportation fuel continues to rise unabated.
What drove this excessive use of non-renewable fuels? One could posit that the Industrial Revolutions and the two World Wars perpetuated a variety of economic policy-based incentives at the international, domestic and local levels that were essentially designed to drive a continuous cycle of consumption. This combination of aggressive economic policies that are driven and supported by a dependence on carbon-based fuels is referred to as a carbon-based economy.
Source: Consumption Driven Corporate Economy
During the first industrial revolution of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, coal became an integral part of the industrial process, not only as coke in iron foundries and textile mills, but also in steam power. During the middle of the 19th Century, advances in electricity for uses such as lighting, heat and powering machinery for industrial, commercial and residential purposes also led to increased emissions. With the invention of the internal combustion engine, dramatic improvements in transportation options were made available that could not have been imagined in the prior century including private vehicles, airplanes and large ships. The economy that emerged from the Industrial Revolution vastly changed the prevalent socio-economic characteristics as well. Where prior to the Industrial Revolution small crafts and family owned businesses and farming flourished, the Industrial Revolution drew many impoverished farmers to cities. Due to laissez-faire policies of that era, power was concentrated into the hands of the factory owners. By the 1840s this burgeoning middle class of factory owners was allowed to vote along with gentrified landowners. This set in motion a century or more of the concentration of wealth and the power to influence decision-making in the hands of a small select population. It is not surprising, therefore, that policy since this era bolstered the economic power of this select group. Despite some recent progress in Washington DC to influence the oil and car industries, some might argue that even to this day the control of national energy policies reflects this preference for supporting, for instance, the top energy companies in the US.
However, what most irreversibly changed the economy was the introduction and use of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator for measuring the progress of economies both nationally and internationally. While the GDP was originally developed as a tool for measuring the gross tally of products and services bought and sold, it also began to be widely used for measuring global well-being and productivity. As a decision-making tool, it fails to distinguish between costs and benefits, or productive activities and destructive ones. The GDP was borne from a need for national indicators that would help measure the effectiveness of government efforts to alleviate the Great Depression. According to a Pardee paper released in February of this year, "In 1934, Simon Kuznets, the chief architect of the United States national accounting system, cautioned against equating GDP growth with economic or social well-being."1 Yet it continues 75 years later.
One could argue that misuse of the GDP can be blamed for the relentless focus on the "bottomline" of global economic activity. It contributed to a disingenuous disregard for impacts on the environment, society and human health. Therefore concerns about the impacts of carbon emissions and the destruction of natural habitats were too easily set aside. Companies and countries measured their "success" only on their ability to manufacture, buy and sell goods. It provided a justification for civilization's total disregard for the environment, society and human health, that were perceived only as dispensable functions of the economy. GDP and other singular economic indicators appeared to justify a general detachment regarding the links between these sectors and a society's complete well-being.
The Politics of Information
During the onslaught of the industrial revolution, scientists were not completely unaware of the harmful outcomes of the increasing obsession with coal and oil. Predictions of global temperature rise from increasing levels of atmospheric carbon-dioxide were heard more than a century ago. Swedish Scientist Svante Arrhenius proposed this theory as far back as 1898. In the 1930s there was renewed interest and reporting of increase in global temperatures. At that time, British scientist and engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar re-introduced this theory as the "Callendar Effect." However, it was only with the establishment of the International Global Atmospheric Research Program in 1967, for the purposes of gathering data for better short-range weather prediction, that global warming was officially recognized within the scientific community.
Concern about global warming was firmly established by 1979 when the World Climate Research Program was launched. However, within the United States, political conservatism in the 1980s countered major research by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency that confirmed the occurrence of global warming. The US-based Global Climate Coalition that comprised fossil-fuel and other industries was formed in 1989 to take advantage of this political environment. They played a significant role in lobbying politicians and convincing the media and public that climate science was too uncertain to justify action. This group finally dissolved in 2000 as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their third report that finally ended the debate around global warming.
Now, as the US approaches the deadline for the Kyoto protocol, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is in fact a man-made creation that has been propelled by shortsighted socio-economic policies. The root cause for global warming is a uni-dimensional carbon-based economy that has led us to underestimate negative impacts in other areas such as community education, health, environment and so on. As long as these economic policies and incentives remain in place, it is unlikely that the earth will see much change in its continued warming. As more countries buy into this western economic model of industrialization, and every country's economic progress continues to be measured by economic indicators like the GDP, it may indeed be very difficult to reverse global warming and reduce the chances of severe and perhaps irreversible climate change.
It is ironic that the well-meaning economic policies that propelled two centuries of industrial progress could be thus affecting the sustainability of global economies. At which point do societies step back and reconsider the rationality of their actions and policies? Do we use limited tools such as a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether the "costs" of climate change are well worth the benefits of a carbon based consumptive economy, or would we then risk perpetuating the limited thinking that created this situation? Or, do we challenge ourselves to a completely different way of thinking and constructing our well-being that allows us to continue our path to progress without guaranteeing our own demise?
New technologies and socio-economic constructs suggest that an alternative approach may be closer at hand than originally imagined.
Parts 2 and 3 of this series will be presented in future Planning Advisor columns.
1 Costanza, Robert, Maureen Hart, Stephen Posner and John Talberth. Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress. Boston University, Pardee Paper #4. January 2009.
Pat Dugan has a unique combination of experience in both planning and public finance, spanning 35 years. As a planner, he has been a planning director in two cities (Auburn and Burien), and two regional planning agencies in Oregon and Washington; and was a planning manager in Goleta, California. In public finance, Pat has served as the chief financial officer in four public agencies including the Cities of Auburn and Lynnwood, and the Snohomish County Public Works Department. He has written extensively on financing capital facility programs and on public finance for planners. Pat now offers planning and public finance consulting services and in his own firm, Dugan Consulting Services in Everett and can be reached at consult.dugan@verizon.net.
Anindita Mitra, AICP is the Founder of CREÄ Affiliates, LLC a planning and urban design consultancy that focuses on creating awareness of unsustainable practices, and offers a platform for affected parties to openly communicate and collaborate to arrive at creative sustainable solutions. She is also one of the Co-Chairs of the Climate and Sustainability Initiative of the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association. Anindita's current interests include the development of sustainable master plans and streetscape designs; establishing sustainable community indicators and their integration into comprehensive plans and governance; identifying creative solutions directing communities towards energy-independence; preparing communities for the challenges potentially brought upon by the Climate Change phenomenon; and advancing the integration of transit and non-motorized travel solutions into community land use planning. She has worked throughout the United States for both the public and private sectors.
Phil Olbrechts is a member (similar to partner) and elected member of the board of directors of Ogden, Murphy, Wallace, LLC. Phil focuses his practice on land use law and currently represents seven municipalities as either City Attorney or Hearing Examiner. He has taught over a dozen credits of land use law at the University of Washington, has taught numerous land use continuing legal education courses and has made over 200 land use presentations to elected and appointed officials throughout Washington State. Phil has served on the Seattle Planning Commission and in the past served as the Planning Director for two municipalities.
*The Articles appearing in the "Planning Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Municipal Research & Services Center.