The news that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the most important global warming gas, have hit 400 parts per million for the first time in millions of years increases the pressure on President Obama to deliver on his pledges to limit this country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

America cannot solve a global problem by itself. But as Mr. Obama rightly observed in his inaugural address, the United States, as both major polluter and world leader, has a deep obligation to help shield the international community from rising sea levels, floods, droughts and other devastating consequences of a warming planet. In his State of the Union speech, he promised to take executive action if Congress failed to pass climate legislation.

Which is just what he will have to do. The prospects for broad-based Congressional action putting a price on carbon emissions are nil.

The Times’ Editors, as well as myself, are not impressed with Obama’s leadership to date on climate change, opining:

Mr. Obama has a firm grasp of the climate issue, and no one doubts that he cares about it. But as is often the case with this president, the question is whether he will exhibit a sense of urgency to match his intellectual understanding.

In my opinion, climate change and its potential consequences make the issues the Administration and Congress seem to hyperventilate about, like gun control, seem trivial, deck chairs on the Titanic. There is no serious effort in Washington for actions to either avoid or mitigate the impacts of looming climate change, and precious little effort to consider adaptation strategies for what is happening to us and the rest of the planet.  To be fair, the obliviousness of our elected representatives reflects the very deep reluctance of American voters to consider any large changes in their lifestyles in order to protect ecosystems, and only a great deal of pain will change that.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

Vagueness on climate change action is necessary for any politician because while the core environmental-climate change problem can be stated simply – TOO MANY PEOPLE CONSUME TOO MUCH- meaningful responses are difficult politically. Meaningful federal government actions might, theoretically, include:

1. ditching the “economic growth is good” political mantra, which is almost unquestioned in the United States, and substituting a national plan for diminishing public and private consumption quickly;
2. implementing a carbon tax high enough to cut hydrocarbon consumption in half along with greenhouse gases resulting from our burning coal, oil and natural gas;
3. changing the tax code to discourage women having more than one or two children in their lifetimes, changes such as doing away with child dependency exemptions;
4. funding strong birth control programs here and abroad;
5. limiting public funding for end-of-life medical care;
6. aggressively cutting immigration into the United States;
7. downsizing the military.

None of these measures appear to be remotely possible in 2013 Washington, where our leaders and followers respond best to in-your-face emergencies like Hurricane Sandy’s flooding that climate change causes. Mother Nature spanks civilizations for violating her, but she also kills, as Jared Diamond eloquently described in his book “Collapse” about civilizations which died after exceeding natural resource limits. Sandy’s damages and 2012′s record heat are still within the spanking phase. We have yet to face death, and America can, perhaps, with radical efforts change behaviors and live on comfortably for a long time.
America has been truly exceptional in setting high consumption standards for the rest of the world, and the world has followed us. I went to Indonesia last month to visit the Indonesian family I had lived with as an exchange student in 1959 and was shocked by Java’s monstrous traffic jams where automobiles had been rare. It took our driver six hours at to take us the 100 miles of so from Jakarta to Bandung, with all-to-wall cars and thousands of motorcycles weaving in and out of car traffic like water bugs on a lake’s surface. Jakarta now has huge, multi-story malls, and swarming crowds shopping for luxury goods seem almost as common as in Dallas. Our consumer society has changed the world, and I hope that a strong, environmentally-inspired move away from worshipping more consumption in the U.S. can be persuasive for Indonesia and the rest of humanity.

What I learned in a year of researching and writing almost 200 posts led to this truce. First, climate science says, bottom line, that it may too late to prevent catastrophic climate change.  The feedback loops, particularly melting  polar ice, are strong and will  make Earth less hospitable whatever we do now, so stop worrying about it.

Second, even if it’s possible to avoid catastrophic global warming,  people are hard-wired against uncomfortable actions big enough to make a difference.   Like other species, the human animal consumes and reproduces without much concern for the consequences of everyone’s doing it.   Biology dictates that survival and comfort are each person’s core marching order, so sacrifice to benefit those who will be around in 20, 30 or 40 years is a  tough sell. Destructive behaviors, like helping to burn four cubic miles of hydrocarbons a year to generate  greenhouse gasses that are heating the planet, come easily because the strong drive for “more” consumption is deeply embedded in us, almost like a deer’s drive to gorge and reproduce even when over-grazing threatens them all.

Compassion, not anger, is the preferred reaction to people  being themselves.  A year ago,  I expressed hope that humans could be different from other animals and wrote that human imagination, rationality, and moral commitment to  younger generations  could triumph over  basic instincts. I advocated restrictions on present consumption, particularly of fossil fuels,  that climate science says are essential to slow global warming.   That’s not happening, as passionately summarized by Robert Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas Austin, a week ago.  Bill McKibben, one of great environmental heroes in my lifetime, laid out what is happening in his August 2012 article, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”

Going forward, this blog will emphasize adaptation and resilience in a time of accelerating climate change.  I will also weigh in  whenever it seems useful on this blog’s four central points: (1) human-caused climate change threatens  everyone; (2) strong, politically-difficult measures, like carbon taxes that would double the price of American gasoline,  could be enacted; (3) human psychology and leaders’ short-sightedness are pushing us on a collective march off  environmental cliffs; and (4) climate scientists have told the truth about consumption’s effects  on our beautiful planet.

The Time journalists’ summary of world environmental problems is informative and has wonderful photos, but they offer only timid “solutions.” They applaud the Sierra Club’s  politically-realistic shift from attacking coal’s greenhouse gas emissions  to a “Beyond Coal” program. The newer persuasion model pushes cutting down on  coal to reduce conventional emissions, like mercury and particulates, which inflict more direct and predictable damages than whatever harms climate change may bring.  With money from New York Mayor Bloomberg, the club’s public health campaigns have helped block construction of 150 proposed coal plants.

The book ends with a short essay by Bill McKibben, the environmentalist  icon who has written  for decades about climate change. McKibben bemoans political deadlocks that kill actions needed to slow global warming, even as  greenhouse gas levels continue up.   Despite unprecedented droughts and storms, most politicians continue to worship at the altar of economic growth and refuse to lead in our ongoing war that pits human beings against natural systems, physics and chemistry. Time has given us a slick, easy read of global warming problems, coupled with its unstated assumption that fighting climate change should be pain-free.

Newsweek magazine’s 11/26/12 cover story is “12 Ways to Avoid the Next Catastrophe” and has a slightly different tack, focused on governments’ investing on infrastructure built to survive Hurricane Sandys and other extremes. Newsweek’s recipe to avoid “Everyday Armageddon” includes items like “Increase tree trimming to prevent downed electrical lines during storms” and move some wires underground. Newsweek’s suggestions are useful, but there is nothing about slowing climate change, only tips for managing change with infrastructure capable of  delivering power, transportation and other basic needs under stress. Unfortunately that’s about as far as mainstream media discussion will go today.

Sure it was a high-consumption evening, but for a great cause – nature and man’s endless quest to understand her. To me, the Perot museum and last night’s party are both flashy, Dallas-style songs of praise for natural science and for the men, women and students who love nature and continue to make the discoveries that change our lives. This user-friendly science palace, sponsored by high-prestige Texans, may even blunt attacks on natural science which doesn’t easily fit religious or political beliefs. There is an ongoing controversy in the Texas Board of Education about teaching creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution ideas accepted by Earth scientists. The Perot “Discovering Life Hall” treats evolution of species as scientific fact, without even a nod to supernatural causes, and offers clever, hands-on tools to help students understand how animals evolve in changing environments.

Oil and gas are important to the economy, and a Hunt Energy Hall display listed two “Great Energy Questions:” “What’s the best energy mix for Texas?” and “Can conservation make a difference?”   The importance of conserving energy seems like a no-brainer when one considers evidence  of greenhouse gas-caused climate change, but this is Texas, and producing and selling petroleum is how many local people, including the Hunt family, make their fortunes.   Fracking for oil and gas dominated the Hunt exhibit space, reflecting fossil fuels’ importance in today’s economy.

Ignoring, discounting or rejecting the science of human-caused global warming  explains much of civilization’s failure to deal with it. I wish every big city had a Perot science museum, even if getting the money to build it requires deference to fossil fuel producers who are powering climate change.

Image by Kuebi = Armin Kübelbeck (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened up by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”

Protecting our children “from the destructive power of a warming planet” has the sound of a call to action following Hurricane Sandy’s demolition of East coast communities. But President Obama’s remarks at today’s press conference implied that any actions will be trivial and ineffectual. In response to a question, the President said he would talk with scientists, engineers, elected officials and others about “short-term” steps to reduce the carbon emissions that are blamed for global warming. He then killed hope for significant action in these words:

“I don’t know what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do. There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices.

“And you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”

Barack Obama is a very smart man, and he must hear climate science shouting that human economic activities, particularly burning hydrocarbons and destroying forests, has altered natural systems, and that dangerous trends and positive feedback loops grow daily. Worrying about jobs and economic growth while ignoring climate change is like worrying about dinner on the Titanic and not watching for icebergs. I voted for Barack Obama in both presidential races, and I made the maximum financial contributions allowed to both campaigns, so it is with regret that I must look for explanations of why a re-elected President Obama has put climate change on a back burner:

1. It’s too hard politically to do anything – America’s voters and their elected representatives aren’t interested in making sacrifices to prevent future catastrophes from global warming; or

2. Obama has been too busy with campaigning to pay attention to climate science and to links between extreme weather events during his presidency and global warming; or

3. It’s too late – human-caused climate change has too much momentum, and the world the Obama children must cope with in 30 years will be much more hostile despite whatever people do now; or

4. Barack Obama is feinting, pretending to ignore climate change’s magnitude until he uses the President’s “bully pulpit” to change public opinion enough.

I want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and go for explanation “4,” but his remarks today were both conventional and disappointing.

The Tesla S was the unanimous choice of the panel of auto writers. The Tesla S has won rave reviews in the automotive press for its exceptional handling quality, rapid acceleration, attractive styling, quality of manufacture, and potential driving range, quite apart from its environment-friendly potential to reduce carbon emissions and use of fossil fuel. In other words, the automotive professional press, in applying all of its standard criteria, has found the Tesla S an exceptional car, even without its “green” credentials. That is revolutionary

Depending on the size of the battery pack ordered in the Tesla S, the potential driving range can exceed 300 miles. Obviously, the size of the battery pack is a major component of the price of the car, which varies from approximately $50,000 to just over $100,000. The Tesla S will mostly be sold initially in California, where charging stations are being built to accommodate Tesla owners who might wish to take a journey of several hours. The first such charging station will enable a Tesla owner to drive from Los Angeles to Lake Tahoe, Nevada and back. Most Tesla owners will drive their cars, however, only for the local trips which characterize most American driving. Depending on how one constructs a home re-charging station and the owner’s driving habits, the normal Tesla owner will comfortably make all day trips without re-charging, plugging in only at night, when rates and electric usage are lowest.

Although a number of manufacturers are producing electric cars, the Tesla S is the first to win such accolades as a car. More typical is the Nissan Leaf, which is strictly a city car, with a limited driving range, little appeal to “car people,” and almost no appeal beyond its “green” credentials. The Leaf understandably has sold poorly, far worse in sales than Nissan had projected.

Up until now, the hybrid Toyota Prius has been the environmental standard, with increasing mileage statistics and market sales. Plug-in hybrids, like the Chevy Volt and one of the current Prius models, are becoming more common, and more widely offered by automotive manufacturers. The plug-ins seemingly offer the best of both worlds. They are hybrids, enjoying standard hybrid economy. But they promise the possibility of operating purely on battery power, recharged every evening at home. However, the purely electric range of the plug-in hybrids is generally quite short. Only if one’s commute is short, only if one has a charging station at work, only if there are more and more charging stations in shopping centers and office buildings, only if one doesn’t make long trips, only if.., does the plug-in hybrid promise a serious environmental and economic savings which justifies its price.

One of the key problems in developing the potential for electric cars is the lack of practical infrastructure which might encourage the committed environmentalist to buy an electric car, or even a plug-in hybrid as his or her next car. I know of one case in a Florida condominium in which a man who purchased a Chevy Volt had to sell it, because his condominium refused to let him build a charging station in the condo he owned. The association was concerned that charging his Volt would adversely impact their community’s electric grid.

Obviously, laws need to be passed which encourage the development of an infrastructure which makes purchase of electric cars or plug-in hybrids attractive. Laws which permit hybrids and electrics to drive in HOV lanes with single occupancy have been passed in some localities in the US. In London, hybrids and electrics are exempt from “congestion charging,” the significant tolls which are charged for private automobiles driving in the center of London. Some London boroughs are now providing free parking at charging stations for electric vehicles both on the street and in parking garages. Registration taxes are significantly lower for electric and hybrid vehicles in Great Britain. These are example of the kinds of government action which would encourage the purchase of electric cars.

For many, car ownership is much more than the provision of transportation from Point A to Point B. It connotes status and image and other ego intangibles. I have confessed in an earlier blog for “We Consume Too Much” of my environmentally sinful car fanaticism. There are hopeful signs that younger generations are becoming less infatuated with cars. Smart phones and other electronic paraphernalia in some population segments appear to be overtaking cars as personal status symbols.

However, for those of us still infatuated with automobiles, the Motor Trend 2013 “Car of the Year” award for Tesla is promising. We can have our cake and eat it too. We can be environmentalists and still love cars maybe. We can drive our personal automotive dreams and still claim green virtue. Tesla will become the “must-have” car of Hollywood fashionistas and other trend setters, in ways that the Prius and the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf would never achieve. Even more promising for the future is that BMW will next year produce two different purely electric models. The “Ultimate Driving Machine” may yet be parked in an environmental activist’s driveway. BMW, probably the most popular luxury “car guy” car in the world, will go electric, at least in two new models for 2014. Electric cars are here to stay.

Image by By Tesla_Model_S_Indoors.jpg: jurvetson (Steve Jurvetson) derivative work: Mariordo (Mario R. Duran Ortiz) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

To enact a carbon tax, support from powerful corporations will be essential. It’s hopeful that the “West Point of Capitalism,” the Harvard Business School, has published a blog article titled “A business-friendly climate agenda for Obama’s second term” with the following recommendation:

“Put a price on carbon. Economists from across the political spectrum, including N. Gregory Mankiw, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and Arthur Laffer on the right, agree that the most economically efficient way to cut carbon pollution is by imposing a price via a cap or tax. Either would be a powerful incentive to produce cleaner power and could be accompanied by lower taxes on labor or capital, easing the impact on working families and business. As we move toward the fiscal cliff, there is plenty of discussion in Washington, from stakeholders on both sides of the aisle, about raising revenue through a carbon fee as part of a grand bargain on the budget.”

It’s fortunate that Barack Obama is liked and respected overseas because slowing global warming requires worldwide cooperation. Oxford professor Dieter Helm put it this way in the Op-Ed piece he wrote today in the New York Times, “To Slow Warming,  Tax Carbon”:

“Putting a price on carbon is fundamental. If consumers and businesses do not bear the cost of their carbon pollution, they won’t do much about it. This carbon price should not discriminate between locations: global warming is global. If China does not put a price on carbon, and Europe does, then China will effectively receive a huge export subsidy….What is missing across Europe, the United States and China is a global agreement on a proper carbon price. More than any other measure, a tax on carbon consumption is what’s needed to slow the warming of the planet.”

The battle is joined – Hurricane Sandy, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Christie have demanded that everyone look at facts – and 2013 should be a good year for action against climate change.

Image by NASA. Photo taken by either Harrison Schmitt or Ron Evans (of the Apollo 17 crew). [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

“I agree that burning lots of coal, oil and gas and clearing forests has heated the planet and led to worse droughts and storms. But we can’t stop global warming momentum even if everybody stops burning fossil fuels and starts planting trees today. Changing light bulbs or driving an electric car won’t make any difference, so why bother?”

My friend’s pessimistic summary has some science behind it, including a recent National Geographic blog on melting Arctic ice:

“In June, the Arctic ice cap covers around 2% of the Earth’s surface. That 2% of the Earth’s surface… for a period of roughly two months, receives more solar energy per day than even the sunniest areas on the equator.
“….the loss of the Arctic ice throughout the summer would have a warming effect roughly equivalent to all human activity to date. That is to say, with the ice gone in summer, the planet would have an additional heating effect just as large as the heating effect of all human CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to date.
“In other words, the complete meltdown of the Arctic could roughly double the rate of warming of the planet as a whole.”

The Arctic ice cap is shrinking quickly, and the summer Arctic Ocean could be ice-free within a few years, with dark sea water absorbing solar energy that  polar ice previously reflected back into space. If that happens, global warming will accelerate even if civilization stops all greenhouse gas emissions. Other projections are less dire than the National Geographic blog, but recent droughts and storms like Hurricane Sandy are warnings.

Achieving “sustainability,” regulating human conduct to maintain equilibrium with natural systems, is a core  goal. But if we’ve already done enough to move natural systems to different, uncharted equilibriums, “adaptation” and “resilience” become relevant new watchwords. Andrew Zolli has written extensively about resilience and has this explanation-apology for some environmentalists’  change in strategy:

“…a shift from sustainability to resilience leaves many old-school environmentalists and social activists feeling uneasy, as it smacks of adaptation…. If we adapt to unwanted change, the reasoning goes, we give a pass to those responsible for putting us in this mess in the first place, and we lose the moral authority to pressure them to stop. Better, they argue, to mitigate the risk at the source.
“In a perfect world, that’s surely true, just as it’s also true that the cheapest response to a catastrophe is to prevent it in the first place. But in this world, vulnerable people are already being affected by disruption. They need practical, if imperfect adaptations now, if they are ever to get the just and moral future they deserve tomorrow.”

Recent years’ severe Midwest droughts and storms flooding New York City call for strong action. In President Obama’s “hope and change” mantra, public attention may lead to wise adaptation strategies, like dikes to keep sea water out of New York city subways, and to resilience education for people hit by extreme weather and climate events.  Earth is constantly changing, and is always within its own “equilibrium,” but many decades of high greenhouse gasses and lost forests is moving to warmer equilibriums fast. If my friend and some climate science is correct, adaptation and personal resilience  have become the top order of the day, not just fighting to slow man’s contributions to climate change.

Veterans Day honors men and women who fought even when the odds of victory didn’t look great, like my father and millions of other Americans  who served in World War II.  We should charge ahead on all fronts: acting aggressively to slow climate change, working to diminish  global warming’s effects, and encouraging personal and system resilience.  That would be our best thanks for all we have been given.

Postscript: The New York Times 11/20/12 issue has two good adaptation articles, “Holding Back Floodwaters With a Balloon” about inflatable balloon-like plugs to stop flood waters from filling underground tunnels, and “Vetoing Business as Usual After the Storm” about building large moveable floodgates such as are already in place for cities such as London, Rotterdam and Tokyo.  The flood barriers’ purpose would be protection against storm surges like Hurricane Sandy’s which flooded parts of New York City.

Image by Alan Vernon “Ice calving from Hubbard Glacier, Alaska 3/5″ via http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanvernon/3926578704/in/photostream/.

The content and urgency of “elected leaders…immediate action” depends on answers to four questions:

1. Does any harmful climate change-global warming exist?
2. If climate change exists, are human activities a major cause?
3. What, if anything, should governments, corporations and individuals do to slow or stop human-caused climate change?
4. What, if any, adaptations to climate change are required?

Great leaders can sometimes take people where they did not want to go; see Stephen Spielberg’s true-story movie “Lincoln” about that president’s political struggle to free slaves. But our elected leaders generally depend on public opinion for winning elections, so we look for the best gauges of voter thinking. Poll-taking organizations’ great success in predicting Tuesday’s elections promotes confidence in recent polls about climate change.

Here are results from polls conducted by Pew Research Center, most recently among 1,511 adults on October 4-7: About 67% of Americans believe that the earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades, and 42% believe that warming is primarily caused by human activities. The survey was taken shortly before the recent election, and there was a wide difference between Democrats, 85% of whom asserted that there is solid evidence of global warming, while only 48% of Republicans shared that conclusion. The split was even greater on the question of whether climate change is human-caused: 63% of Obama supporters said they believed climate change is anthropogenic, while only 18% of Romney supporters did so.

About 97% of serious climate scientists are convinced that earth’s climate is changing, and that man is mostly responsible, but scientists rarely make political decisions. NASA climate scientist James Hansen defined a chasm: “There’s a huge gap between what is understood by the scientific community and what is known by the public,” and “unfortunately, that gap is not being closed.”

If the Obama Administration and Congress accept available climate science and want action to slow human-caused climate change, there are models of what to do. Many European countries discourage burning hydrocarbons for energy through taxes raising consumer prices on gasoline or on all hydrocarbon burning. Norway, for instance, has a gasoline tax equivalent to $6 per gallon, and also has a new carbon tax on oil producers with receipts ear-marked to combat global warming.

On issue “4” above, Hurricane Sandy forced Mayor Bloomberg and others to think about radical measures, such as building huge, mobile dikes to stop the monster storms climate change makes more likely. Rising seas and higher land temperatures call for difficult and expensive adaptations, and the good news from Tuesday’s elections, and to public responses to Hurricane Sandy and severe droughts, is that effective action is slightly more likely.  As “Time” magazine’s 11/19/12 headline put it, “Sandy Ends the Silence: Even if politicians ignore climate change, the rest of us can’t.”

Image by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen/U.S. Air Force/New Jersey National Guard (Flickr) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons