by Jim Ball

This post is the last in my 7 Reasons Why series making the case for why the President must talk now about climate change being a top priority.

To begin to make my final point, let me summarize much of what I've said thus far:

• global emissions must peak during the next Presidential term to overcome global warming and ocean acidification,
• the rate of change to achieve this is daunting but doable,
• forestry and agriculture must be part of the solution, and
• we must make major preparations to adapt and help the poor adapt.

All of this requires comprehensive climate legislation with the following characteristics:

1. Puts a price on carbon in a way that avoids economic harm to the poor and doesn't disproportionately impact any region or major sector of the economy.
2. Provides significant long-term funding for climate-friendly R&D.
3. Has specially designed programs to incentivize climate-friendly activities in forestry and agriculture.
4. Creates and funds comprehensive adaptation programs for both the U.S. and poor countries.

Clearly whoever is the President cannot do this alone. He needs support. And those of us who have accepted the climate challenge must play our part and help create a movement for climate action.

But the President also needs to help build support for action. The nature of the threat requires it, given that we only have a few years to launch a revolutionary, society-wide transformation. So too does the creation of public concern and support.

The work of social scientist Robert Brulle and his colleagues shows that public concern for climate change goes up when senior political leaders talk about the need for action. It goes down when they don't, or when they speak against action.

As one of Brulle's colleagues, Craig Jenkins, put it:

"It is the political leaders in Washington who are really driving public opinion about the threat of climate change "The politics overwhelms the science."

In addition, their study found that the level of public concern also tracked with the amount of media coverage there was, which itself was driven to a large extent by what political leaders were saying.

In an interview Brulle got right to the point: "The fact that Obama isn't talking about the issue or even using the word matters very much."

What's normally the case for politicians is that they respond to what the public considers to be an urgent concern. This mentality was captured in a recent interview on climate change with John Huntsman, former Republican candidate for President and former Governor of Utah. According to Gov. Huntsman, who continues to believe in global warming, the climate challenge

"hasn't translated into any kind of action within the political community because you don't have people on a broad basis who are pushing us because they " just don't see the urgency. The political policy agenda does not move unless it has people who are moving it."

He went on to observe that the lack of leadership is bipartisan:

"I don't hear Democrats talking about it either. I don't see it on the agenda anywhere."

Sad, but true.

Here's the bottom line. The nature of this challenge, both the threat itself and the public support for action, demands Presidential leadership. He can't be the Facilitator-in-Chief on this one. He has to be the Leader-in-Chief. He can't lay back and wait for support to materialize. He must help create it.

In his interview Gov. Huntsman reminded us that "Politics is the art of the possible." But in the case of overcoming global warming we need the President to help make it possible.

Right now, unfortunately, the President is close to being the Neville Chamberlin of the climate challenge, with an apparent strategy of appeasement when it comes to this terrible threat. But President Obama has within him the courage to be the Winston Churchill of overcoming global warming. He must bring forth this God-given courage now and let the country know that it is a top priority. Doing so will give him the moral and political authority to say to the country and Congress that we must do what needs to be done to overcome global warming and create a better future for ourselves, future generations, and those most vulnerable, the world's poor.

The Rev. Jim Ball is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

The world is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Even if the world puts into place a strong program to reduce global warming pollution we will still experience major impacts. And most of these consequences will fall on the poor.

We are all going to have to adapt, and the rich are going to have to help the poor adapt.

Climate adaptation is basically planning for hard times to come, like the Patriarch Joseph did in Egypt when he led the country to store up grain for the coming famine (Gen. 41).

But just like Egypt needed the leadership of Joseph, so too our country needs the President to explain that we must invest in preparations for climate impacts here in the U.S., and that it is in our nation's interest to help the poor in poor countries do the same.

It's pretty simple. The President can't make the case for climate adaptation if he isn't willing to talk seriously about climate change.

Next Up: Essential to Create Public Support

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

Reason 5 in this 7 Reasons Why blog series is not about the consequences of global warming per se, but rather about another consequence of our carbon pollution called ocean acidification.

God's oceans are a tremendous benefit to humanity. For example, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "more than a billion people rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein."

Unfortunately, humanity's poor stewardship -- including overharvesting, water pollution, bad development and fishing practices, and the rise of ocean temperatures from global warming -- is stealing God's blessing from the creatures of the sea (Gen. 1:20-22).

Another major impact that has recently come to light is called ocean acidification, which is being caused mostly by the same carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) that is also the major cause of global warming.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, anthropogenic or human-caused CO2 has made the ocean 30% more acidic. A just-published study in Science concluded the following concerning the current rate of acidification:

• it is happening faster than any time in the last 300 million years, and;
• it is 10 times faster than the last time the oceans were this acidic some 56 million years ago " and that episode was accompanied by a massive extinction.

In other words, what we are doing to God's oceans through ocean acidification is unprecedented in the history of the earth.

Anything with a shell or skeleton made from calcium carbonate -- from oysters, clams and shrimp, to coral reefs, to tiny creatures like Pteropods that help create the foundation of oceanic food webs -- is in serious danger from ocean acidification. As NOAA states, "When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk."

NOAA

Let me briefly highlight two examples. First, coral reefs have been called the rainforests of the oceans for their ability to support so much life " approximately 25 percent of the living creatures of the oceans. They also generate billions of dollars in benefits to humanity. Coral reefs are a focal point of God's blessing of the seas: "God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas'" (Gen. 1:22).

Ocean acidification on its own puts coral reefs at risk. In our lifetimes -- on our watch as God's stewards -- we could literally destroy the capacity of many coral reefs to sustain life through ocean acidification and other harmful activities.

Second, oysters are a major industry, with the West Coast bringing in over $270 million a year. As NOAA reports, "In recent years, there have been near total failures of developing oysters in both aquaculture facilities and natural ecosystems on the West Coast." They consider ocean acidification a "potential factor" in this collapse." A just-published study of a commercial oyster hatching facility in Oregon goes further, concluding that ocean acidification was responsible for a decline to a level that was not economically sustainable.

Just as with climate change, it is ocean acidification's unprecedented rate of change that requires us not simply to have a gradual transition towards clean energy. The President must help the country understand that we need a revolution, not just a transition. We need a great transformation to overcome these twin challenges of climate change and ocean acidification. But time is running short to bring about this great transformation. The country cannot accomplish this without strong leadership from the President.

Next Up: The Need to Adapt

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

More than half of the actions to reduce global warming pollution worldwide will need to come from outside the electricity and industrial sectors. While electricity's potential is the largest at 26%, you might be surprised to learn that the forestry sector is the next largest at 21%. And actions in the forestry sector keep overall costs of overcoming global warming worldwide down significantly " it would cost approximately 50 percent more without them.

Here in the US, forestry accounts for around 11% of potential reductions, the same as transportation, while forestry and agriculture combined equal 17%, the same as what can be achieved via the industrial sector.

For the President simply to talk about clean energy won't get us where we need to be in the U.S. on forestry and agriculture. And our innovations in these areas are needed to help prime the pump worldwide. But for us to play our part, the President must lead.

Next Up: Ocean Acidification

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

Today's blog provides Reason 3 of the 7 Reasons Why the President must talk about climate change and not just clean energy.

For years now natural gas has been touted as the "clean" fossil fuel, given that it lacks air pollutants like soot and mercury. And when burned at a power plant to make electricity, it produces about half the global warming emissions as coal.

As such, natural gas has been pushed by some supporters of climate action as a "bridge" that will help take us from the fossil era into the clean energy era. (See, for example, former Sen. Tim Worth's comments here and here and here.)

In his 2012 State of the Union address, the President proclaimed his Administration's strong commitment to natural gas development. He recently reiterated this in a speech in New Hampshire on March 1st:

"We're taking every possible action to develop a near 100-year supply of natural gas, which releases fewer carbons."

Unfortunately, serious reservations have recently been raised about natural gas serving as a "bridge" to a climate-friendly future. Indeed, natural gas could be "all hat and no cattle" when it comes to overcoming global warming.

First, two prominent scientists, Myhrvold and Calderia just published the results from "a quantitative model of energy system transitions that includes life-cycle emissions and the central physics of greenhouse warming." Essentially they gamed out scenarios for replacing coal-generated electricity with electricity generated from sources that are less carbon intensive to determine what temperature reductions they would bring and when. They concluded that natural gas "cannot yield substantial temperature reductions this century."

On its own this study raises important questions about natural gas as part of overcoming global warming. Certainly more study is needed along such lines.

But other disturbing news has come to light about natural gas.

Recent studies (here and here and here) have indicated that current and future natural gas production in this country could produce more global warming pollution than coal -- even more when looking at a 20-year time-frame. The main reason? Natural gas fields are leaking much more gas than previously thought.

Again, more study is needed of such "fugitive emissions" as they are called. But enough has been done to raise very serious questions. These fugitive emissions could be addressed by an upcoming regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By how much is not yet clear.

Taken together, these studies suggest that natural gas can no longer be relied upon as part of a strategy of climate change mitigation. It could be "fool's gold" when it comes to overcoming global warming, foolish investments that take money away from real solutions.

As such, the President cannot tout natural gas as part of an energy strategy he privately hopes will also address climate change. Indeed, it requires the Administration to put the brakes on natural gas until these serious climate concerns are thoroughly assessed. To justify such a major change in policy would require the President to talk about a key reason for the switch: climate change.

Next Up: It's Not Just About Energy: Deforestation, Agriculture

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and Climate Change and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

As I put forward in the Introduction to this blog series, there are 7 Reasons Why the President must talk about climate change and not just clean energy. Last week I posted Reason 1, arguing that to avoid dangerous tipping points global emissions must peak during the next presidential term. Today's post is Reason 2.

We're going to need a clean energy revolution whose rate of change must be incredibly fast. A gradual transition won't cut it. This revolution will require strong and sustained Presidential leadership.

According to the respected business consulting firm McKinsey & Co., to overcome global warming will require a 10-fold increase in carbon productivity (or amount of output produced per unit of carbon). Has something like this ever been achieved? Yes. The Industrial Revolution achieved a 10-fold increase in labor productivity. However, our "carbon revolution" will have to occur in one third the time.

Here's where things currently stand. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently released its annual forecast. (The EIA is an independent analytical agency of the federal government that tracks energy use and trends, including greenhouse gas emissions.) It projects that US carbon dioxide pollution will be 7% below the 2005 level in 2020, and will continue to stay below 2005 levels through 2035 even with a 25 percent rise in population. This results from increased fuel economy standards, appliance standards, federal clean air regulations, state policies requiring more renewable energy, and a rise in natural gas use, but doesn't yet include two other major policies that will reduce emissions further " the mercury regulation of power plants and the next round of fuel economy standards.

While we're moving in the right direction, this current EIA projection is less than half of the commitment we made at the 2009 international climate talks in Copenhagen (or 17 percent below 2005 levels). And the commitments made at Copenhagen are themselves not enough to overcome global warming.

So here's the deal: we're on the right path, but without comprehensive climate change legislation that includes a price on carbon we won't get there. The President's proposed Clean Energy Standard, focused on making electricity much cleaner and climate-friendly, is important but insufficient. A price on carbon is still needed to drive innovation throughout the economy. Such a price on carbon could be provided by market-based policies like a cap-and-trade system or a revenue-neutral carbon tax where those who do the right thing effectively get a tax cut. The resulting innovation will benefit not simply the U.S. The world needs us to make such investments and drive such innovation. As McKinsey & Co has shown, emissions from electricity generation and from industry represent less than half of the potential opportunities to overcome global warming worldwide. Other sectors like forestry and agriculture must also contribute (discussed further in Reason 4, forthcoming).

If emissions didn't need to peak by 2015-17, if the rate of change needed to overcome global warming was much slower, then we could get away with talking just about clean energy and proposing policies like a Clean Energy Standard. We could avoid talking about putting a price on carbon. And the President could avoid talking about making overcoming global warming a top priority.

But ignoring the rate of change needed or wishing it away won't make it disappear. It's a reality we must face.

Next Up: Natural Gas May Be "Fool's Gold"

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and Climate Change and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

Yesterday I posted up the Introduction to this series of blogs providing 7 Reasons Why the President must talk about climate change and not just clean energy. Today's blog presents the first of these seven reasons.

Whoever is President during the next term (2013-2016) will be the most important President ever -- before or since -- on overcoming global warming. No one person in the history of the world will have more opportunity to lead on climate change. He can't do it alone, but without strong leadership from the President we won't get it done. Simple as that.

Just talking about clean energy doesn't convey either the urgency or the scale of the changes needed. When it comes to overcoming global warming, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises the G20 on energy matters, concluded the following in their latest annual report, the World Energy Outlook 2011:

• 80 percent of the world's emissions budget is already "locked in" due to existing energy-related infrastructure (e.g. power plants, buildings, vehicles) and we are on track to lock in the remaining 20 percent by 2017.
• If significant action is delayed until 2015, "around 45 percent of the global fossil-fuel capacity installed by then would have to be retired early or refurbished by 2035."
• If action is delayed until 2017, all new energy-consuming capital stock will have to produce no global warming pollution if we are to have a chance at overcoming global warming. In other words, all new buildings, vehicles, power plants, etc., must be zero carbon/GHGs in order not to exceed a 2 degrees Celsius rise from preindustrial levels or 450ppm.

Next up: We Need a Revolution, Not a Transition

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and Climate Change and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

[Editor's Note: This is the Introduction to a 7-part blog series.]

Climate change has nearly disappeared from the national conversation. But climate change itself has not disappeared. It still remains the great moral challenge of our time, impacting billions this century and a mortal threat to millions of the world's poor. And if we don't act decisively in the next few years dangerous tipping points could be crossed with consequences yet to be fully imagined. Overcoming climate change is still possible, but that window will soon close.

Instead of talking about climate change, President Obama talks about clean energy -- and here lately he's shifted from talking about clean energy to talking about "American energy," even using a favorite phrase of Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans, an "all of the above" approach to American energy.

The Administration's branding of their energy strategy

Now there are lots of good things associated with clean energy, with striving for "energy security" and "energy independence." And it is vital to have an emphasis on producing more clean energy here in the United States. Who isn't for clean energy made in America?

But to be a real leader of our country at this moment requires the President to talk about overcoming global warming, not just energy.

To have the necessary political and moral authority to be the leader he needs to be, the next President (whether that be our current President or Gov. Romney) must state publicly that overcoming global warming will be a top priority in his Administration; without this, it will be extremely difficult for him to come to Congress and the country and ask for their support, given that major changes are needed that will affect all of us.

I'm sure President Obama's rhetorical turns of phrase on energy poll quite well. And I'm guessing his political advisors could be telling the President to stay away from talking about climate change.

But for the good of the country and the world the President must explain to the country why significant climate action is needed.

Here are 7 reasons why:

1. To Avoid Dangerous Tipping Points Global Emissions Must Peak During the Next Presidential Term

2. We Need A Revolution, Not A Transition

3. Natural Gas May Be "Fool's Gold"

4. It's Not Just About Energy: Deforestation, Agriculture

5. Ocean Acidification

6. The Need to Adapt

7. Essential to Create Public Support to Pass Climate Change Legislation

(These 7 Reasons Why also apply to Gov. Romney. But he must also clarify his basic stance on the issue.)

As part of this series, each of these 7 reasons will be posted as a separate blog post over the coming days.

Next Up: Reason 1: To Avoid Dangerous Tipping Points Global Emissions Must Peak during the Next Presidential Term

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is EEN's Executive Vice President for Policy and Climate Change and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.

by Jim Ball

On Wednesday the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants.

The U.S. needs to be doing much more than it currently is to overcome global warming and protect the poor from its impacts. The Obama Administration's regulation is an important step along this road, given that this is the first time carbon from power plants will be regulated.

The Obama Administration was required to act because of the failure of Congress to do so. Comprehensive climate legislation with a market-based approach to pricing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is still the better option. But until Congress acts, the Obama Administration must keep our country moving forward on overcoming climate change.

The next regulatory step will be to require existing coal-burning plants to reduce their carbon pollution. We hope that before such regulations need to be issued Congress will pass comprehensive climate legislation that not only puts a price on carbon, but also helps to fund long-term climate-friendly R&D, has specially designed programs to incentivize climate-friendly activities in forestry and agriculture, and creates and funds comprehensive adaptation programs for both the U.S. and poor countries.

Before such legislation can be passed, President Obama himself must explain to the country that overcoming climate change is vital for our nation's health and well-being. He must let the country know that it will be a top priority if he is honored with a second term. Defending this particular regulation of new power plants provides him the perfect opportunity to do so.

The Rev. Jim Ball, Ph.D., is Executive Vice President at EEN and author of Global Warming and the Risen LORD.