Climate Change: A Step Toward Realism

1. Climate Change: A Step Toward Realism Joel Schwartz Visiting Fellow American Enterprise Institute Industrial Environment/California Manufacturers and Technology Association Annual Meeting November 8, 2007 San Diego, California

2. Environmentalists claim air pollution will increase in future due to greenhouse warming

3. Back in the real world: Rising Temperatures…Declining Air Pollution Ozone: 8-hour exceedance days/year; PM2.5: annual average. Temperature and pollution levels are national averages.

4. More driving, more energy…less air pollution (1) Change in ambient pollution levels, 1980-2005 Sources: EPA, DOT, DOE

5. More driving, more energy…less air pollution (2) Change in pollutant emissions, 1980-2005 Sources: EPA, DOT, DOE

6. Air pollution will continue to decline • Motor vehicle standards will eliminate more than 80% of vehicle NOx, VOC and PM, even after accounting for growth in driving • Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) will eliminate more than 70% of SO2 and more than 50% of NOx during the next two decades • MACT rules eliminate most emissions from a wide range of industrial sources • Overall, existing requirements will eliminate at least 70%-80% of remaining air pollution during next 20 years or so

7. Long-term ambient, on-road, and stack measurements confirm pollution reductions • On-road emissions: • Average automobile’s emissions are dropping: VOC -12%/yr; NOx -6%/yr; CO -10%/yr. • Heavy-duty diesel trucks: NOx -4%/yr; soot -8%/yr • Rate of NOx and soot declines will accelerate as vehicles built to new Tier 2 (2004) and heavy-duty (2007) emissions standards begin to permeate the on-road fleet • Power plant emissions: • NOx SIP Call recently reduced coal-fired NOx emissions nearly 60% below 1998 level. SO2 down 23% since 1998. • Ambient levels of directly emitted pollutants: • Steady declines in NO2, CO, SO2, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, total VOC, etc. All dropping a few percent to several percent per year.

8. So how did NRDC come up with rising air pollution levels in the future? NRDC’s press release “Smog Poses Greater Health Risk Because of Global Warming More Bad Air Days for Southern, Eastern U.S. Cities WASHINGTON, DC (September 13, 2007) -- People living in ten mid-sized metropolitan areas are expected to experience significantly more 'red alert' air pollution days in coming years due to increasing lung-damaging smog caused by higher temperatures from global warming. Researchers project that, unless action is taken to curb global warming, by mid-century people living in a total of 50 cities in the eastern United States would see: A doubling of the number of unhealthy ‘red alert’ days A 68 percent (5.5 day) increase in the average number of days exceeding the current 8-hour ozone standard”

9. NRDC’s Sleight of Hand • Used the 1996 EPA emissions inventory to “predict” ozone levels in the 2050s • But 1996 ozone-precursor emissions were more than 30% higher than 2006 emissions • In other words, NRDC got higher future ozone levels by assuming a large increase in future ozone-forming emissions. However, NRDC obscures this fact in its report and press release.

10. NRDC’s response to Schwartz’s critique of Heat Advisory: Deception and evasion • NRDC: “The project on which Heat Advisory is based kept anthropogenic ozone precursor emission levels constant as a way of evaluating the effect that climate change alone could have on ozone concentrations.” • Misleading: “Constant” really means “constant at 1996 levels”, which really means more than 30% higher than today, and at least four or five times higher than emissions in coming decades • NRDC: “While we would expect significant reductions in precursor emissions over the next decade there are no reliable estimates of precursor emissions extending to the mid 21st century.” • Climate activists assume climate models provide accurate predictions of future temperatures without batting an eye. But when it comes to ozone, NRDC pleads uncertainty and then chooses increases in future ozone-forming emissions that are patently at odds with any plausible future scenario. • If anything, the statement that “there are no reliable estimates….extending to the mid 21st Century” is far more applicable to greenhouse gas emissions and climate models’ predictive skill than it is for ozone-forming emissions. • Imagine NRDC’s reaction if climate skeptics assumed CO2 emissions would stay constant at 1996 levels to predict future climate

11. NRDC then claimed Heat Advisory wasn’t really making predictions of future ozone levels: • “The project on which Heat Advisory is based kept anthropogenic ozone precursor emission levels constant as a way of evaluating the effect that climate change alone could have on ozone concentrations. Other researchers may choose alternative assumptions about how anthropogenic ozone precursors could change in the future, and will arrive at different projected ozone concentrations. Projections of how global warming would affect ozone levels are not predictions of what will happen.” • Now look at NRDC’s press release: Smog Poses Greater Health Risk Because of Global Warming More Bad Air Days for Southern, Eastern U.S. Cities WASHINGTON, DC (September 13, 2007) -- People living in ten mid-sized metropolitan areas are expected to experience significantly more 'red alert' air pollution days in coming years due to increasing lung-damaging smog caused by higher temperatures from global warming. Researchers project that, unless action is taken to curb global warming, by mid-century people living in a total of 50 cities in the eastern United States would see: A doubling of the number of unhealthy ‘red alert’ days A 68 percent (5.5 day) increase in the average number of days exceeding the current 8-hour ozone standard

12. NRDC certainly knows that air pollution will decline—their press releases highlight the new regulations • EPA Rule Means Progress Against Diesel Pollution According to Natural Resources Defense Council, May 10, 2004 • These standards…will reduce particulate soot and nitrogen oxide emissions [from non-road diesel vehicles] by 90-95 percent in most cases • NEW DIESEL FUEL HITTING PUMPS NATIONWIDE ON OCTOBER 15 CUTS POLLUTION, ENABLES NEW LOW-EMISSION ENGINE TECHNOLOGY, October 10, 2006 • …when combined with a new generation of engines hitting the road in January, it will enable emission reductions of up to 95 percent, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council • EPA touts new, cleaner cars, January 26, 2004:  • Mike Leavitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, unveiled 17 new cars and trucks designed to meet stricter "Tier 2" emissions standards set in 1999. The vehicles, which burn low-sulfur fuel, are 77 percent to 95 percent cleaner than current models.

13. What makes Heat Advisory even more egregious is that the report was actually written by university and government scientists Heat Advisory’s authors are from major universities and gov’t agencies Activism thinly cloaked in a scientific wrapper

14. Heat Advisory’s results have also been published in two journal articles • Knowlton et al., “Assessing ozone-related health impacts under a changing climate,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (2004): 1557-63 • Bell et al., “Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities,” Climatic Change, 82 (2007): 61-87 • These studies both manufacture increases in future ozone by assuming increases in ozone-forming emissions that are patently at odds with any plausible future scenario. • Both studies are peer-reviewed. Both are published in prestigious journals. And both have nothing to do with reality.

15. “Let’s pretend” is almost standard in peer-reviewed scientific studies • Sitch et al., “Indirect radiative forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon sink,” Nature, 48(2007). • Study uses IPCC A2 scenario for future ozone precursor emissions. • But A2 scenario has no relationship to reality. A2 assumes rising NOx and VOC in developed countries—just the opposite of the actual trend.

16. Sitch et al.’s modeled ozone levels also conflict with measured levels

17. Only one study has tried to use a realistic estimate of future air pollutant emissions

18. GA Tech/NESCAUM assumptions & results • Assumptions • Climate warms about 2.5˚F by 2050 (IPCC A1B scenario) • NOx and SO2 emissions drop 50%; VOC emissions drop more than 40% • Results • “The combined effect of climate change and emission reductions lead to a 20% decrease (regionally varying from 11% to 28%) in the mean summer maximum daily 8-hour ozone levels (M8hO3) over the United States. Mean annual PM2.5 concentrations are estimated to be 23% lower (varies from 9% to 32%).” • Modeling suggests warming alone increases ambient pollution in some regions of U.S. and decreases it in others, but effects are small compared to effect of emission reductions

19. GA Tech study is actually too pessimistic • Future air pollution declines will be greater than Georgia Tech/NESCAUM study predicts • NOx has already declined more from 2001-2006 than study assumed for 2001-2020. VOC has already declined more than half the amount predicted for 2001-2020. • In last six years, the U.S. has achieved more than one-fourth the ozone and PM2.5 decline predicted for 2001-2050

20. California Wildfires—Any Connection with Human Caused Climate Change? • Activists and journalists were quick to blame the southern California wildfires on drought purportedly caused by climate change. • In fact—as anyone who lives in southern California knows—SoCal has virtually no rain from May through September • In fact, it is wet winters that help create conditions amenable to wild fire, by stimulating growth of vegetation

21. The Real Causes of SoCal Wildfires • “These [SoCal] fires often occur in conjunction with Santa Ana weather events, which combine high winds and low humidity, and tend to follow a wet winter rainy season…over a century of watershed reserve management and fire suppression have promoted fuel accumulations, helping to shape one of the most conflagration-prone environments in the world.” • “charcoal records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments indicate the frequency of wildfires in the region has not changed significantly in the last 500 years.” • “The severity of the immediate human impact of the October 2003 wildfires was exacerbated by the rapid growth of an extensive wildland-urban interface proximate to a population of nearly 20 million in southern California…The intensity of the fires and the severity of their ecological impact on the region’s forests were exacerbated by the long-term accumulation of fuels such as snags, logs, and heavy brush due to 20th Century fire suppression policies and watershed preservation efforts since the late 1800s.” • “Precipitation tends to be above normal in the winter or early spring prior to the fire season, suggesting that large fall and winter fires are preconditioned two or more seasons in advance.” • Westerling et al., “Climate, Santa Ana Winds and Autumn Wildfires in Southern California,” EOS, 85 (2004): 289, 296.

22. What about the effect of future warming? • “warmer temperatures might tend to reduce the moisture available to plants during the growing season.” • In other words, warming = less plant growth = lower fire risk • “Preliminary results of a Santa Ana wind analysis indicate, however, that the frequency of Santa Ana events in early fall, when temperatures are still high, may decrease by the end of the century, which would serve to reinforce any reductions in southern California fire risks due to changes in temperature and precipitation.” • In other words, models suggest warming = fewer Santa Ana’s = lower fire risk • Westerling et al. “Climate change and wildfire in California,” Climatic Change, in press

23. Southern California Monthly Precipitation, 2000-2007

24. No human signal in long-term SoCal precipitation trend

25. According to Cal-EPA... But note that decline is not volume of runoff, but percent of total runoff occurring from April-July (Source: Cal-EPA AB1493 briefing package)

26. California’s Water Supply Is Not Shrinking Index is unimpaired runoff. Source: CA Dept. of Water Resources

27. No signal of human-caused climate change in long-term Sacramento River Index Sacramento River Index, 900-2007 Reconstruction is based on tree-ring data. Sources: Measured runoff: CA Dept. of Water Resources. Reconstructed runoff, NCDC/NOAA

28. According to Cal-EPA… Source: Cal-EPA, AB 1493 briefing True, but sea level has been rising since the 1920s—decades before humans emitted enough GHGs to affect the climate. Cal-EPA’s own graph shows this. In fact, the graph shows sea level rose as much from 1860-1885 as it did from 1950-2000.

29. Sea level rise has slowed or stopped since mid-1980s San Francisco coastal sea level trend, 1854-2007 Source: NOAA, Historic Tide Data

30. World sea levels don’t show a global warming signal • Sea level has been rising since at least the beginning of the 20th Century • But 94% of all human CO2 emissions occurred after 1910; 90% after 1920 • Rate of sea level increase slowed down during the 20th Century

31. Rate of sea level rise is 27% lower than IPCC estimate • Study used GPS data to measure vertical land movements and correct for these movements in estimating sea-level trend from tide gauges • After factoring in vertical land movement, average rate of world sea level rise is 27% lower than IPCC estimate

32. Reality: Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 means developed world must deindustrialize “India, at 1 tonne [annual CO2 emissions] per capita, is the only large-sized economy that is below the desired carbon emission levels of 2050. ‘India should keep it that way and insist that the rich countries pay their share of the burden in reducing emissions,’ says Mr [Nicolas] Stern.” India Times, Nov. 5, 2007 CO2 emissions data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

33. Wealth requires abundant energy, which in practice means mainly energy from fossil fuels CO2/person vs. GDP/person, 2004 Allowable CO2 per capita for stabilization Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

34. The relationship between abundant energy and prosperity explains why it is so hard to get people to produce less CO2, even in countries that claim to be very concerned about climate change

35. No magic bullets for reducing fossil fuels • Europeans have been paying $5 or $6 per gallon of gasoline for decades. But their cars still run on gasoline and diesel. • They drive smaller cars than we do, and they drive them less. • Europeans pay a price—not just in Euros—but in less useful and less comfortable cars, and in lower mobility

36. How about getting people out of their cars and into transit? Europe is going in the opposite direction. EU15 trend in person-miles per capita by mode • Transit’s market share dropped from 25% to 16% between 1970 and 2000 • Autos account for 78% of travel miles • Vast majority of new development is suburban Source: European Environment Agency

37. People buy cars as soon as they become wealthy enough to afford them Cars/capita vs. GDP/capita, 2002 It’s not just Americans who have a “love affair with the automobile” “Love affair” is also the wrong metaphor. People the world over buy cars because no other transport mode offers comparable flexibility, speed, privacy, convenience, or autonomy Source: Int’l Monetary Fund

38. Unintended consequences when governments try to pick technology winners through a political process • New research suggests that N2O from fertilizer used to grow fuel crops more than offsets any CO2 savings • N2O has about 300x the greenhouse potential of CO2 “we have shown that, depending on N[itrogen] content, the use of several agricultural crops for energy production can readily lead to N2O emissions large enough to cause climate warming instead of cooling by ‘saved fossil CO2’.”

39. Energy realism from a climate alarmist I’ll tell you one of the horrifying facts of global warming, and why it is so inexorable. Suppose that you and I wanted…[to] guarantee that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…would not go up any more. ...You’d have to cut [world carbon dioxide emissions] by 75 percent. That’s a horrific number if you think about everything that you do: whether it’s talking on the telephone, or driving our cars, or heating or cooling our homes. Think of everything that’s manufactured, energy used to extract metals, for example…You would have to have a radical change in your lifestyle. …In fact, it’s worse than I talk about, because suppose that we’re able to produce the miracle – the absolute miracle – of reducing 75% in our emissions globally. Guess what? Over the next hundred years, the Earth would warm up another degree Fahrenheit, even though we produced that miraculous result. …it’s really hard to do something about it in a relatively short period of time, say over the next three decades. It’s really, really hard. — Jerry Mahlman, NOAA Climate Scientist, Earth & Sky interview

40. Don’t underestimate the benefits of abundant, inexpensive energy

41. To contact me joel@joelschwartz.com To read my papers and presentations www.joelschwartz.com