Emissions from the widespread burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because these gases can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years before being removed by natural processes, their warming influence is projected to persist into the next century. Jump to “The burning of fossil fuels has increased greenhouse gases”
Culture, Climate Science & Education
Click the Double Arrows () to Explore this Principle
Principle Seven: Humans Affect Climate
The Cultural Values are Responsibility, Honesty, and Respect
Episode Seven: Bull Trout
Episode 7: Bull Trout
Transcript with Description of Visuals
|
Audio |
Visual |
|---|---|
|
Soft instrumental music: |
Flying over a lake toward snow-covered mountains |
|
My name is Rylee I have grown up on this land like my Sx̣epeʔ and his Sx̣epeʔ before them. |
Rylee, his grandfather, and Alyssa Pretty On Top walk on a trail toward the river. |
|
And I want to tell you about the Jocko River and bull trout, a fish that is very important to our people. |
An underwater view of a large bull trout swimming through clear water saturated with bubbles. The speckled fish is a greenish color on its back and sides and pink on its belly. Its fins are lined on the leading edge with white. |
|
The Jocko flows through the heart of our homeland and has nurtured our people for countless generations providing everything we have needed to live good lives. |
Flying over the Jocko River, a cold mountain stream. Its banks covered with dense, green riparian vegetation. A black and white historical photo of a fish trap with several teepees in the background. |
|
Fish were important because they were always available. |
A black and white historical photo of an Indian man fishing from a traditional canoe. He is using a hand line and leaning over the side of the canoe. |
|
Even during difficult times when other foods were not. |
A black and white historical photo of two women and a man fishing on Flathead Lake. |
|
My Sx̣epeʔ says that, like bitterroot and grizzly bears, bull trout have always been at the center of our culture and that we have a sacred agreement to protect them, an agreement we must honor. |
Rylee and his grandfather standing by the river. The scene transitions to an undewater view of a bull trout swimming through icy blue water full of bubbles, then transitions back to Rylee and his grandfather standing by the river. |
|
But now bull trout are threatened. The rivers waters are warming and scientists are worried more than ever about the bull trout's future. |
Looking down through the clear waters of the Jocko River at the colored cobbles on the river bottom. |
|
Losing bull trout would be devastating for both the tribal and aquatic communities. |
Underwater close-up of a bull trout’s head followed by an underwater close-up of the fish’s tail. |
|
Today we're meeting up with Casey Ryan, a tribal hydrologist to learn how the tribes have done watershed restoration to help bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. |
Casey Ryan, followed by Alyssa and Rylee, walk on a trail through lush green riparian vegetation toward the Jocko River. |
|
Casey Ryan: |
They stand on the river bank as the river rushes by. |
|
Imagine, it if you will, use your imagination. For thousands of years the river corridor looked much like this. There was healthy riparian vegetation all along the river. And there were lots of native fish. |
Casey standing before a small crossection of the river. The riparian vegetation is dense, the river flowing clear and has native fish swimming in it. A black bear walks across the bank. |
|
But then in the early 1900's this river began to change. Farming and ranching came to the valley and homes, roads and railroads were built, often right in the floodplain. Riparian vegetation was cleared. Water was taken from the river for irrigation. Habitat for fish and for other species declined. |
As Casey talks, the crossection of the river transitions, the riparian vegetation replaced by a farmhouse and haystack. Cows walk pass the haystack and a dog sits and then lies on the bank. The river water is cloudy and the fish are now non-native species. |
|
Non-native fish like brook trout rainbow trout and brown trout were introduced. |
Alyssa and Rylee listening, watching Casey as he talks. |
|
As a result Bull Trout are now threatened and westslope cutthroat trout are in trouble. |
Camera zooms from the crossection as Casey continues to talk. |
|
Rylee: |
Alyssa and Rylee listening, watching Casey. Scene transitions to a small waterfall. The camera goes underwater at the base of the falls where we see two large bull trout spawning. |
|
So we are putting meanders and pools and large woody debris back in. We are removing invasive species like non-native fish. |
Aerial view of the Jocko River. A view of the river with two large fallen logs crossing it. Another view of the river with water rushing by large boulders. |
|
As a result the river will look and function more like it did 200 years ago. The water will be cooler because there is more shade. |
Looking down from high above the river as the camera follows the course of the river. |
|
It will be clearer because banks will be more stable, so less sediment will enter the river. |
A closer view of the river from above, looking down at clear water running over colorful cobbles and boulders. |
|
All this protects critical habitat so native fish can be resilient as the climate warms. |
A view where the river is at eye-level, then an underwater view of a large bull trout opening its mouth wide and then closing it. The water is an icy blue and filled with bubbles. |
|
The Jocko River Restoration Project is a way of giving back. |
Rylee, Alyssa, and Casey stand on the rivers bank smiling and talking as they watch the river rush by. |
|
My Sx̣epeʔ says that we have a responsibility to treat the river and bull trout with respect. |
Alyssa and Rylee stand with their grandfather on a ridge overlooking the river. Their grandfather is talking to them, gesturing with his hands. |
|
We have to help keep the water cool so that native species can survive in the future. |
An underwater scene of a large bull trout swimming through bubbles. |
|
This is how we give back to the animals and plants that were here long before us. |
Bison cows and calves grazing on a grassy area overlooking the river. |
|
This is how we honor our sacred agreement. |
Rylee and Alyssa’s grandfather talking in a prayer-like way to a group of bison. |
|
This is how we act in the face of climate change. |
A grand view of the Mission Valley as the sun rises over the snow-covered peaks. The valley floor is green and speckled with dozens of ponds and lakes. |
|
(soft instrumental music) |
Two bull trout swimming side-by-side, scene from above. |
|
|
The following credits in white text over a black background: |
Principle 7
What You Need to Know About Principle 7: Humans Affect Climate
We have known about the greenhouse effect for a long time. It has been described for over 150 years, in fact, and for over a century we have been calculating the potential for human activities to increase the temperature of the Earth through greenhouse gas emissions. And we have known about possible consequences: In 1958, the National Academy of Sciences published a booklet titled “Planet Earth: The Mystery with 100,000 Clues,” which contained this paragraph:
Read more…
What You Need to Know About Principle 7: Humans Affect Climate
We have known about the greenhouse effect for a long time. It has been described for over 150 years, in fact, and for over a century we have been calculating the potential for human activities to increase the temperature of the Earth through greenhouse gas emissions. And we have known about possible consequences: In 1958, the National Academy of Sciences published a booklet titled “Planet Earth: The Mystery with 100,000 Clues,” which contained this paragraph:
Almost sixty years ago, the authors of this booklet accurately predicted many aspects of today's climate change in this paragraph. But they were off on several key points: they did not anticipate the population of the planet more than doubling, and the demand for fossil fuel energy growing exponentially. In fact, from 1958 to the year 2000, the release of global fossil carbon emissions into the atmosphere rose from around 6 megatons to around 30 megatons of CO2 (instead of the 10 megatons the book predicted). Moreover, the authors anticipated the ocean would absorb most of the carbon dioxide when in fact it currently absorbs only about 30% of it. They also did not recognize that as the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, it becomes acidic, threatening ocean organisms.
click the tabs to open
- Most of the increase in global average temperatures is human caused
The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Jump to “Most of the increase in global average temperatures is human caused”
- The burning of fossil fuels has increased greenhouse gases
- Getting Personal
Learn how much CO2 you emit. Jump to “Getting Personal”
- Human activities have altered global climate patterns
Human activities have affected the land, oceans, and atmosphere, and these changes have altered global climate patterns. Burning fossil fuels, releasing chemicals into the atmosphere, reducing the amount of forest cover, and rapid expansion of farming, development, and industrial activities are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and changing the balance of the climate system. Jump to “Human activities have altered global climate patterns”
- Human-caused global warming has caused changes in many physical and biological systems
Growing evidence shows that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to human-caused global warming. Some changes resulting from human activities have decreased the capacity of the environment to support various species and have substantially reduced ecosystem biodiversity and ecological resilience. Jump to “Human-caused global warming has caused changes in many physical and biological systems”
- There will be both positive and negative impacts from global climate change but negative impacts are likely to be much greater than positive
Scientists and economists predict that there will be both positive and negative impacts from global climate change. If warming exceeds 2 to 3°C (3.6 to 5.4°F) over the next century, the consequences of the negative impacts are likely to be much greater than the consequences of the positive impacts. Jump to “There will be both positive and negative impacts from global climate change but negative impacts are likely to be much greater than positive”
Principle 7a
Most of the increase in global average temperatures is human caused
The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
While there is public debate on some TV stations and in some newspapers about the cause of recent climate change, there is generally no debate about the cause of climate change among climate scientists or the peer reviewed literature.
Read more…
Most of the increase in global average temperatures is human caused
The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
While there is public debate on some TV stations and in some newspapers about the cause of recent climate change, there is generally no debate about the cause of climate change among climate scientists or the peer reviewed literature.
This is why you often hear scientists say there is “overwhelming consensus” among their peers. A variety of studies have noted that while most American adults believe climate change is happening, less than half of American adults think that climate scientists agree — i.e., that there is a scientific consensus — that human activities are a major cause of warming.
Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in 2009 of the survey results from 3146 Earth Scientists, finding that 97% of climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming. They noted: “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
What is this? click the image to enlarge and find out.
Scroll down to find the red dots, which represent the 24 papers that reject human-caused global warming. The green dots represent the 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change that support the conept of human-caused global warming. All the papers were published between 1991 and 2012. That’s 13,950 to 24.
Researcher James Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change, searching for papers that rejected human-caused global warming. He found only 24, which represents about .02% of the publications. In this graphic, the red dots represent those .02% of the papers; the green dots represent all of the other papers that support the concept that humans are the major cause of global warming. The papers were published between 1991 and 2012. This is perhaps as close to a consensus as you can possibly get in science. It is clear: humans are causing the plane to warm.
click the image to enlarge
The Cause of Global Warming
To navigate through the graphs, scroll down until you see the down arrow and click it. Take a look also at the feature article.
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Source: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources:
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
- American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 - American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 - American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
- The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf
References
- J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. - Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
- ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
- Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
- Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
- Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
- APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
- GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
- Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
- Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
- Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)
S
Principle 7b
The burning of fossil fuels has increased greenhouse gases
Emissions from the widespread burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because these gases can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years before being removed by natural processes, their warming influence is projected to persist into the next century.
Fossil fuels are very concentrated forms of transformed solar energy. It’s been estimated that one gallon of gasoline equals 98 tons of biomass. It is important to acknowledge that extremely powerful and portable forms of fossil fuel energy have been liberating in many respects, allowing machines to do work that would otherwise be done by human or animal muscle-power. The world has changed tremendously, socially, economically and environmentally due to fossil fuels. Read more…
The burning of fossil fuels has increased greenhouse gases
Fossil fuels are very concentrated forms of transformed solar energy. It’s been estimated that one gallon of gasoline equals 98 tons of biomass. It is important to acknowledge that extremely powerful and portable forms of fossil fuel energy have been liberating in many respects, allowing machines to do work that would otherwise be done by human or animal muscle-power. The world has changed tremendously, socially, economically and environmentally due to fossil fuels.
The burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, isn’t the only human contribution (also called "anthropogenic forcing") to climate change. However, human-generated carbon dioxide is considered the greatest contributor to recent climate change. It's important to “close the loop” in people’s understanding of how our food and our fossil fuel energy comes “from out of thin air” through photosynthesis. This can help develop people’s mental models and systems thinking: it’s all connected.
In an article in Science Magazine (October 24, 2008) entitled “Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance,” John D. Sterman notes that the “strong scientific consensus on the causes and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion and complacency among the public. Why does this gulf exist, and why does it matter? “He found that the vast majority of MIT graduate students examining a graph of projected CO2 emissions "underestimated and/or misunderstood what it would take to reduce the levels of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere."
While we may not think in terms of stocks and flows in our everyday life, we experience them everytime we fill up a bathtub. As long as the faucet is adding more than the drain is letting out, the bathtub will continue to fill. Today we add roughly 9 megatons of carbon a year to the atmospheric reservoir, and about 4 megatons are removed a year through natural processes, meaning there is a net gain. Stabilizing the concentrations will require reducing the inflow to at least the level of natural removal, and reducing the amount of concentration would require emissions that are lower than the natural removal.
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Global Emissions by Gas
At the global scale, the key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are:
Source: IPCC (2014) based on global emissions from 2010. Details about the sources included in these estimates can be found in the Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- Carbon dioxide (CO2): Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. The way in which people use land is also an important source of CO2, especially when it involves deforestation. CO2 can also be emitted from direct human-induced impacts on forestry and other land use, such as through deforestation, land clearing for agriculture, and degradation of soils. Likewise, land can also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other activities.
- Methane (CH4): Agricultural activities, waste management, energy use, and biomass burning all contribute to CH4 emissions.
- Nitrous oxide (N2O): Agricultural activities, such as fertilizer use, are the primary source of N2O emissions. Biomass burning also generates N2O.
- Fluorinated gases (F-gases): Industrial processes, refrigeration, and the use of a variety of consumer products contribute to emissions of F-gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Black carbon is a solid particle or aerosol, not a gas, but it also contributes to warming of the atmosphere. Learn more about black carbon and climate change on our Causes of Climate Change page.
Global Emissions by Economic Sector
Global greenhouse gas emissions can also be broken down by the economic activities that lead to their production.
Source: IPCC (2014); based on global emissions from 2010. Details about the sources included in these estimates can be found in the Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
- Electricity and Heat Production (25% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions.
- Industry (21% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily involve fossil fuels burned on site at facilities for energy. This sector also includes emissions from chemical, metallurgical, and mineral transformation processes not associated with energy consumption and emissions from waste management activities. (Note: Emissions from industrial electricity use are excluded and are instead covered in the Electricity and Heat Production sector.)
- Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
- Transportation (14% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation. Almost all (95%) of the world's transportation energy comes from petroleum-based fuels, largely gasoline and diesel.
- Buildings (6% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector arise from onsite energy generation and burning fuels for heat in buildings or cooking in homes. (Note: Emissions from electricity use in buildings are excluded and are instead covered in the Electricity and Heat Production sector.)
- Other Energy (10% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions): This source of greenhouse gas emissions refers to all emissions from the Energy sector which are not directly associated with electricity or heat production, such as fuel extraction, refining, processing, and transportation.
Trends in Global Emissions
Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres R.J. (2015). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015.
Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have increased by about 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributing about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes have been the second-largest contributors.
Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases have also increased significantly since 1900. To learn more about past and projected global emissions of non-CO2 gases, please see the EPA report, Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2020.
Emissions by Country
Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2015). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2011, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015.
In 2011, the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters were China, the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, Japan, and Canada. These data include CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, as well as cement manufacturing and gas flaring. Together, these sources represent a large proportion of total global CO2 emissions.
Emissions and sinks related to changes in land use are not included in these estimates. However, changes in land use can be important: estimates indicate that net global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land use were over 8 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or about 24% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. In areas such as the United States and Europe, changes in land use associated with human activities have the net effect of absorbing CO2, partially offsetting the emissions from deforestation in other regions.
References
1. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change . Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
2. FAO (2014). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks.(89 pp, 3.5 M, About PDF) Climate, Energy and Tenure Division, FAO.
3. IPCC (2014): Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.(80 pp, 4.2 M, About PDF) [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
S
Principle 7c
Getting Personal
How much CO2 do you emit?
The images immediately below allow you to visualize better your carbon output. One slide shows how much carbon different kinds of light bulbs emit in a day (on average). Another shows how much carbon is released when you burn a gallon of gasoline. Another two show the average per capita (per person) carbon output for 4 countries and the world.
Visualizing Your Carbon Output
You can calculate your own personal carbon footprint by clicking here.
Principle 7d
Human activities have altered global climate patterns
Human activities have affected the land, oceans, and atmosphere, and these changes have altered global climate patterns. Burning fossil fuels, releasing chemicals into the atmosphere, reducing the amount of forest cover, and rapid expansion of farming, development, and industrial activities are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and changing the balance of the climate system.
Read more.
Human activities have altered global climate patterns
Worldwide changes in land use since 1700. Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/landuse.html
Human activities have affected the land, oceans, and atmosphere, and these changes have altered global climate patterns. Burning fossil fuels, releasing chemicals into the atmosphere, reducing the amount of forest cover, and rapid expansion of farming, development, and industrial activities are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and changing the balance of the climate system.
As the global population grew from less than a billion people in the year 1700 to about six billion in the year 1990, the planet’s vegetation cover, albedo and hyrologic processes were also substantially altered. While releasing carbon dioxide from these activities is a key concern, methane from agriculture and wetlands (and increasingly, from Arctic permafrost) and overall alteration of land cover most also be considered. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions and may exceed the emissions generated by automobiles. (The pie chart below only includes CO2. Methane, another potent greenhouse gas, is produced during meat production. The charts below do not include methane.
Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)
The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch—a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards—releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
Soil carbon sequestration fact sheet
Published: June 24, 2008, 8:10 pm
Author: Ecological Society of America
Topic Editor: Jan-Peter Mund
Source: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156083/
This ecology fact sheet was originally published by the Ecological Society of America (ESA).
Over the past 150 years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased by 30%. Most scientists believe there is a direct relationship between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global temperatures. One proposed method to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide is to increase the global storage of carbon in soils. An added benefit to this solution is the potential for simultaneous enhancement in agricultural production. But what exactly is carbon sequestration, and what is its role in the global carbon cycle? How can we manage soils to capitalize on their ability to store carbon? And what are the costs and trade-offs of these activities?
What is Carbon Sequestration?
Carbon is found in all living organisms and is the major building block for life on Earth. Carbon exists in many forms, predominately as plant biomass, soil organic matter, and as the gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and dissolved in seawater. Carbon sequestration is the longterm storage of carbon in oceans, soils, vegetation (especially forests), and geologic formations. Although oceans store most of the Earth’s carbon, soils contain approximately 75% of the carbon pool on land — three times more than the amount stored in living plants and animals. Therefore, soils play a major role in maintaining a balanced global carbon cycle.
How is Carbon Sequestered in Soils?
Benefits and Potential Costs of Management Techniques to Enhance Carbon Sequestration in Soils
Benefits of Soil Sequestration of Carbon
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is only one significant benefit of enhanced carbon storage in soils. Improved soil and water quality, decreased nutrient loss, reduced soil erosion, increased water conservation, and greater crop production may result from increasing the amount of carbon stored in agricultural soils. Management techniques, which are successful in providing a net carbon sink in soils, include the following:
- Conservation tillage minimizes or eliminates manipulation of the soil for crop production. It includes the practice of mulch tillage, which leaves crop residues on the soil surface. These procedures generally reduce soil erosion, improve water use efficiency, and increase carbon concentrations in the topsoil. Conservation tillage can also reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed by farm operations. It has been estimated to have the potential to sequester a significant amount of CO2.
- Cover cropping is the use of crops such as clover and small grains for protection and soil improvement between periods of regular crop production. Cover crops improve carbon sequestration by enhancing soil structure, and adding organic matter to the soil.
- Crop rotation is a sequence of crops grown in regularly recurring succession on the same area of land. It mimics the diversity of natural ecosystems more closely than intensive mono-cropping practices. Varying the type of crops grown can increase the level of soil organic matter. However, effectiveness of crop rotating depends on the type of crops and crop rotation times.
Strategies to Reduce CO2
High levels of fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have transformed large pools of fossil carbon (coal and oil) into atmospheric carbon dioxide. Strategies aimed at reducing CO2 in the atmosphere include soil carbon sequestration, tree planting, and ocean sequestration of carbon. Other technological strategies to reduce carbon inputs include developing energy efficient fuels, and efforts to develop and implement non-carbon energy sources. All of these efforts combined can reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and help to alleviate global warming.
Potential Costs of Soil Sequestration of Carbon
Nitrogen fertilizer can increase soil organic matter because nitrogen is often limited in agroecosystems. However, the CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion during the production, transport and application of nitrogen fertilizer can reduce the net amount of carbon sequestered. Nitrogen from fertilization can also run off agricultural lands into nearby waterways where it may have serious ecological consequences.
Growing plants on semiarid lands has been suggested as a way to increase carbon storage in soils. However, the fossil fuel costs of irrigating these lands may exceed any net gain in carbon sequestration. Additionally, in many semi-arid regions surface and groundwater contain high concentrations of dissolved calcium, and bicarbonate ions. As these are deposited in the soil, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Management for carbon sequestration affects other gases that influence climate such as atmospheric concentrations of nitrous oxide and methane. Changes in these gases must also be factored into management strategies for carbon storage.
The Role of Forests in Reducing Atmospheric Carbon
What are scientists doing to understand soil carbon sequestration?
There is still much to learn about carbon sequestration. Current research is addressing issues that include the following:
- Impacts of land use and land management on soil carbon sequestration and ways to increase the storage time of carbon in the soil.
- The underlying mechanisms controlling soil structure and the storage of carbon. These include various chemical, physical, biological, mineralogical, and ecological processes.
- The relationships between biodiversity, atmospheric CO2 levels, and increased nitrogen deposition in carbon storage.
For More Information
- Ecological Society of America, 1990 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, 202-833-8773. esahq@esa.org
- Soil Science Society of America, 677 South Segoe Road, Madison, WI 53711. 608-273- 8095.
- U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585. 202-586-6503. fewebmaster@hq.doe.gov
- Carbon Sequestration in Soils. 1999. Science. William H. Schlesinger. 25 June, vol. 284.
S
Principle 7e
Human-caused global warming has caused changes in many physical and biological systems
Growing evidence shows that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to human-caused global warming. Some changes resulting from human activities, like the production of greenhouse gases, have decreased the ability of the environment to support some species and have substantially reduced biodiversity and ecological resilience.
In the United States the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have been used to monitor and regulate specific forms of pollution, helping to minimize the impacts of acid rain and severe water pollution from industrial and municipal sources. Read more…
Human-caused global warming has caused changes in many physical and biological systems
Growing evidence shows that changes in many physical and biological systems are linked to human-caused global warming. Some changes resulting from human activities, like the production of greenhouse gases, have decreased the ability of the environment to support some species and have substantially reduced biodiversity and ecological resilience.
In the United States the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have been used to monitor and regulate specific forms of pollution, helping to minimize the impacts of acid rain and severe water pollution from industrial and municipal sources.
On December 7, 2009, Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a final action, under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, finding that six key greenhouse gases constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to the climate change problem.
The Endangered Species Act is used to protect threatened populations and habitats to prevent extinction. According to a new study in Science, climate change alone could drive as many as one in six animals and plant species to extinction. As the planet warms, species must look for suitable habitat at higher elevations and towards the poles, but many are not finding what they need to survive.
The linkages between different Earth systems mean that many human activities can potentially impact climate and indirectly, species.
click the image to enlarge
Climate Change Is Predicted to Cause Large Shifts in North American Tree Species Richness
Estimated tree species richness under (A) current climatic conditions (1971–2000) and (B) predicted future climatic conditions (2071–2100). Future climatic conditions were based on the A2 emissions scenario of the Canadian CGM3.1 model; see McKenney et al. 2011 for information about this and other climate models. (After McKenney et al. 2011.)
What's Happening to Arctic Sea Ice?
The chart above shows Arctic sea ice minimums since 1979.
The heavy black line shows the average for the period between 1981 and 2010.
Credit: NSIDC
For good summaries of how human-caused global warming has caused changes in physical and biological systems and human communities, click through some of the different sectors described in the National Climate Assessment:
Or view the impacts to the Northwest and Great Plains Regions:
NASA: climate change leads to enormous ecosystem shifts – 40% of biomes flip this century
Posted on December 20, 2011 by Rolf Schuttenhelm
Source: http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-change-ecosystem-shifts-biomes-biodiversity-4451/
The results of studies that try to quantify the effects of climate change on biodiversity loss which include damage to the micro scale level of subspecies and genetic variation are perhaps most shocking.
When however you focus on the response to climate change at the macro level, the ecosystem level, you get a better understanding of what is one of the major drivers of that biodiversity loss: forced migrations. And even here, the numbers may be larger than one would expect, as a new assessment by NASA and Caltech published in the journal Climatic Change shows that by 2100 some 40 percent of ´major ecological community types´ – that is biomes like forest, grassland, tundra – will have switched to a different such state.
According to the same study most of the land on Earth that is not currently desert or under an icecap will undergo at least a 30 percent change in vegetation cover.
Ecological damage is the real climate problem
Based on IPCC temperature projections for 2100 [which are probably on the conservative side] of 2-4 degrees Celsius warming scientists of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology ran special computer models to calculate the most probable ecosystem responses across the planet. This average temperature rise is of similar magnitude to the warming that occurred between the Last Glacial Maximum and the onset of the (milder) Holocene – with the big exception that the current warming is happening about 100 times faster – and for ecology that makes a huge difference, the authors stress.
“While warnings of melting glaciers, rising sea levels and other environmental changes are illustrative and important, ultimately, it’s the ecological consequences that matter most,” says John Bergengren from Caltech, who led the study.
It is not just species that have slowly evolved around specific climatic values, the same goes for ecosystems. As another study, recently published in Science, shows tropical biomes like rainforest, savanna and desert are tied to specific climate tipping points. When certain climatic thresholds are crossed the one ecosystem can suddenly switch to the other, as intermediate states somehow prove to be non-existent.
Migrations will be crisscross
As ecosystems shift on a timescale of centuries or less, species cannot adapt [because the required structural evolution takes millions of years] so they have to start moving to find other suited habitat, resembling their original climate and vegetation zones. For most species this requires migration towards the poles – but of course our planet’s many features, from mountain ranges, rivers and coastlines, to areas with high human population density and anything from agricultural plains to highways, industries and parking lots, greatly increases the extinction risk for individual species.
Perhaps somewhat harder to envision for us is that [as other new research shows] under continued climate change marine species face similar migratory distances – as the complexity of that blue world below the waterline is not limited to the presence of salty water, and finding replacement ecosystems may be equally challenging for a coral fish as it is for an orangutan.
The fact that some species are much better capable of migrating than others will likely only increase ecological imbalances and the risk of dangerous ecosystem plague damage.
Most sensitive climate hotspots
The new study by NASA and Caltech defines as ecologically sensitive hotspots – areas projected to undergo the greatest degree of species turnover – regions in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau [as this ‘third pole’ is in fact to be considered a climatic island], eastern equatorial Africa [which has an unstable drought-sensitive climate], Madagascar, the Mediterranean region, southern South America, and North America’s Great Lakes and Great Plains areas. The largest areas of ecological sensitivity and biome changes predicted for this century are found in areas with the most dramatic climate change: in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes, particularly along the northern and southern boundaries of taiga or boreal forests.
S
Climate Impacts on Ecosystems
Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ecosystems.html
Climate is an important environmental influence on ecosystems. Climate changes and the impacts of climate change affect ecosystems in a variety of ways. For instance, warming could force species to migrate to higher latitudes or higher elevations where temperatures are more conducive to their survival. Similarly, as sea level rises, saltwater intrusion into a freshwater system may force some key species to relocate or die, thus removing predators or prey that were critical in the existing food chain.
Climate change not only affects ecosystems and species directly, it also interacts with other human stressors such as development. Although some stressors cause only minor impacts when acting alone, their cumulative impact may lead to dramatic ecological changes. [1] For instance, climate change may exacerbate the stress that land development places on fragile coastal areas. Additionally, recently logged forested areas may become vulnerable to erosion if climate change leads to increases in heavy rain storms.
Changes in the Timing of Seasonal Life-Cycle Events
For many species, the climate where they live or spend part of the year influences key stages of their annual life cycle, such as migration, blooming, and mating. As the climate has warmed in recent decades, the timing of these events has changed in some parts of the country. Some examples are:
- Warmer springs have led to earlier nesting for 28 migratory bird species on the East Coast of the United States. [1]
- Northeastern birds that winter in the southern United States are returning north in the spring 13 days earlier than they did in the early 20th century. [4]
- In a California study, 16 out of 23 butterfly species shifted their migration timing and arrived earlier. [4]
Range Shifts
As temperatures increase, the habitat ranges of many North American species are moving northward in latitude and upward in elevation. While this means a range expansion for some species, for others it means a range reduction or a movement into less hospitable habitat or increased competition. Some species have nowhere to go because they are already at the northern or upper limit of their habitat.
For example, boreal forests are invading tundra, reducing habitat for the many unique species that depend on the tundra ecosystem, such as caribou, arctic fox, and snowy owl. Other observed changes in the United States include expanding oak-hickory forests, contracting maple-beech forests, and disappearing spruce-fir forests. As rivers and streams warm, warmwater fish are expanding into areas previously inhabited by coldwater species. [5] Coldwater fish, including many highly valued trout species, are losing their habitats. As waters warm, the area of feasible, cooler habitats to which species can migrate is reduced. [5] Range shifts disturb the current state of the ecosystem and can limit opportunities for fishing and hunting.
See the Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts & Adaptation page for information about how habitats of marine species have shifted northward as waters have warmed.
Food Web Disruptions
The Arctic food web is complex. The loss of sea ice can ultimately affect the entire food web, from algae and plankton to fish to mammals. Source: NOAA (2011)
The impact of climate change on a particular species can ripple through a food web and affect a wide range of other organisms. For example, the figure shows the complex nature of the food web for polar bears. Declines in the duration and extent of sea ice in the Arctic leads to declines in the abundance of ice algae, which thrive in nutrient-rich pockets in the ice. These algae are eaten by zooplankton, which are in turn eaten by Arctic cod, an important food source for many marine mammals, including seals. Seals are eaten by polar bears. Hence, declines in ice algae can contribute to declines in polar bear populations. [4] [5] [6]
Threshold Effects
In some cases, ecosystem change occurs rapidly and irreversibly because a threshold, or "tipping point," is passed.
One area of concern for thresholds is the Prairie Pothole Region in the north-central part of the United States. This ecosystem is a vast area of small, shallow lakes, known as "prairie potholes" or "playa lakes." These wetlands provide essential breeding habitat for most North American waterfowl species. The pothole region has experienced temporary droughts in the past. However, a permanently warmer, drier future may lead to a threshold change—a dramatic drop in the prairie potholes that host waterfowl populations and provide highly valued hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. [3]
Similarly, when coral reefs become stressed, they expel microorganisms that live within their tissues and are essential to their health. This is known as coral bleaching. As ocean temperatures warm and the acidity of the ocean increases, bleaching and coral die-offs are likely to become more frequent. Chronically stressed coral reefs are less likely to recover.
Pathogens, Parasites, and Disease
Climate change and shifts in ecological conditions could support the spread of pathogens, parasites, and diseases, with potentially serious effects on human health, agriculture, and fisheries. For example, the oyster parasite, Perkinsus marinus, is capable of causing large oyster die-offs. This parasite has extended its range northward from Chesapeake Bay to Maine, a 310-mile expansion tied to above-average winter temperatures. [8] For more information about climate change impacts on agriculture, visit the Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts & Adaptation page. To learn more about climate change impacts on human health, visit the Health Impacts & Adaptation page.
Extinction Risks
Climate change, along with habitat destruction and pollution, is one of the important stressors that can contribute to species extinction. The IPCC estimates that 20-30% of the plant and animal species evaluated so far in climate change studies are at risk of extinction if temperatures reach levels projected to occur by the end of this century. [1] Projected rates of species extinctions are 10 times greater than recently observed global average rates and 10,000 times greater than rates observed in the distant past (as recorded in fossils). [2] Examples of species that are particularly climate sensitive and could be at risk of significant losses include animals that are adapted to mountain environments, such as the pika, animals that are dependent on sea ice habitats, such as ringed seals, and cold-water fish, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest. [5]
For information about how communities are adapting to the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, visit the Ecosystems Adaptation section.
References
1. Fischlin, A., G.F. Midgley, J.T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M.D.A. Rounsevell, O.P. Dube, J. Tarazona, A.A. Velichko (2007). Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods, and Services. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability . Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
3. CCSP (2009). Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems . A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Fagre, D.B., Charles, C.W., Allen, C.D., Birkeland, C., Chapin, F.S. III, Groffman, P.M., Guntenspergen, G.R., Knapp, A.K., McGuire, A.D., Mulholland, P.J., Peters, D.P.C., Roby, D.D., and Sugihara, G. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington DC, USA.
4. CCSP (2008). The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States . A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M. Ryan, S. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
5. USGCRP (2009). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). United States Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
6. ACIA (2004). Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment . Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
7. NRC (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights of National Academies Reports . National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.
8. NRC (2008). Ecological Impacts of Climate Change . National Research Council. The National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.
S
Principle 7f
There will be both positive and negative impacts from global climate change but negative impacts are likely to be much greater than positive
Scientists and economists predict that there will be both positive and negative impacts from global climate change. If warming exceeds 2 to 3°C (3.6 to 5.4°F) over the next century, the consequences of the negative impacts are likely to be much greater than the consequences of the positive impacts.
Life is adaptive and human beings can be resilient to challenges presented them. While stopping global warming completely isn’t possible, there is much we can do to minimize the impacts and prepare our communities, locally and globally, to be able to withstand the known and unknown impacts ahead.
For good summaries of Adaptation strategies, visit the National Climate Assessment:
Tribal Profiles
Source: http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/tribal-profiles/
Tribes across the United States are leading the way with innovative efforts to address climate change through adaptation and mitigation strategies. The Tribal Climate Change Profiles are intended to be a pathway to increasing knowledge among tribal and non-tribal organizations interested in learning about climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals also publishes these profiles, as well as additional profiles they generate on their Tribes & Climate Change website: www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest.asp.
**NEW** Nooksack Indian Tribe: Rivers and Glaciers —Keeping salmon and the ecosystem healthy in light of climate change and distressed ecosystems. In response to concerns about the Nooksack River and the glaciers that drain into it, the Nooksack Indian Tribe is undertaking efforts to address climate change and its impacts on Nooksack Usual and Accustomed lands and its people. Specifically, the Tribe is exploring climate impacts facing their lands as a way to address the continued health of salmon: riparian ecosystem health, stream and river temperatures, sediment loading in the watershed, and impacts of climate change on glaciers and the hydrology of the Nooksack River. Salmon in the Nooksack River are already severely stressed by a variety of factors including wide scale-watershed alteration by forest practices, channelization of the river, pollution and human-induced habitat loss. Climate impacts, therefore, have the potential to cause major additional harm to salmonid populations in the Nooksack River. Mitigating the impacts of climate change is therefore an integral part of ensuring that the Nooksack watershed is able to continue supporting salmon at harvestable levels. This profile draws on the work of the Nooksack Indian Tribe to address climate change impacts on the hydrology of the Nooksack River and salmon survival and recovery.
**NEW** Nez Perce Tribe: Clearwater River Subbasin Climate Change Adaptation Plan. In an effort to prepare for changes to their homelands’ ecology, the Nez Perce Tribe’s Water Resources Division created a climate change adaptation plan for the Clearwater River Subbasin in 2011. The plan focuses on climate impacts to water and forestry resources, two areas of natural resource management that are both culturally and economically important to the Nez Perce Tribe. The adaptation plan includes an assessment of existing conditions in the subbasin, and data on how changes in climate may impact forests, waters, and the local economy. This profile highlights the efforts of the Nez Perce Tribe to increase awareness of climate change issues in their region through this plan, as well as their strategies for integrating adaptation into existing and future management plans. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_nezperce_clearwater.asp
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: Climate Change Strategic Plan
In response to growing concerns about the impacts of climate change on tribal members and on their homelands, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have developed a Climate Change Strategic Plan. The Tribes worked with several partners, including Salish-Pend d’Oreille Culture Committee, Kootenai Culture Committee, Next Seven Group LLC, the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC), the Kresge Foundation, and the Roundtable of the Crown Continent Adaptive Management Initiative, to develop a plan to inform the tribal policy and actions moving forward. This plan brings together the knowledge of elders with scientific observations to document existing impacts and prepare for future changes. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_kootenai.asp
Jamestown S’Klallam Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan
In order to promote climate resilience in their community, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe has developed a Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan. Drawing on an Environmental Protection Agency Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) grant, and in collaboration with Adaptation International and Washington Sea Grant, the Tribe developed a plan that addresses sea level rise, ocean acidification, salmon health, natural disasters and shifts in species ranges. The plan drew on input from tribal leaders, elders and technical staff to ensure that tribal concerns were considered. The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe sees climate adaptation as a process, not an outcome; this plan is part of an ongoing effort by the Tribe to prepare for climate impacts on their community. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_skallam.asp
The Swinomish Tribe and Tsleil Waututh First Nation
Correlation and Climate Sensitivity of Human Health and Environmental Indicators in the Salish Sea
In 2012, the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative awarded over $300,000 to seven projects aimed at increasing the use of TEK in climate change adaptation and natural and cultural management. The Swinomish Tribe and Tsleil Waututh First Nation, two peoples of the Salish Sea, collaborated together on one of these projects. By bringing together data on environmental, cultural and human health impacts, the project partners are refining their understanding about what areas within their communities may be most sensitive to climate impacts. In doing so, the Swinomish Tribe and Tsleil Waututh First Nation are gaining a more complete understanding of how climate change may affect their communities. This innovative approach builds upon previous work done by the Swinomish Tribe and has potential as a model for other tribal communities aiming to better understand climate impacts to their people and homelands. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_swinomish_tsleil.asp
South Central Climate Science Center: Tribal Climate Change Variability Workshops
In the South Central US, particularly severe climate impacts are projected to occur. With support from the South Central Climate Science Center (SCCSC) and Southern Climate Impacts Planning Program (SCIPP), the University of Oklahoma (OU) hosted a series of five intertribal workshops on climate impacts. Paulette Blanchard, a Master’s candidate at OU who played an instrumental role in organizing the workshops, brought together native filmmakers with tribal participants to discuss ways that native people can document their experiences and challenges with climate impacts. These workshops also provided an opportunity for tribes and governmental agencies such as the SCCSC to establish working relationships. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/plains_sccsc.asp
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians: Climate Change and Environmental Management Programs
Concerned about the effects of climate change on their homeland and surrounding environment, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians have taken numerous steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change on tribal peoples, land, and resources. This profile describes the climate change programs implemented by the Santa Ynez Chumash Environmental Office and the Chumash Casino Resort to address climate change adaptation and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/southwest_chumash.asp
Indigenous Peoples and Northwest Climate Initiatives: Exploring the Role of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Resource Management
In 2012, the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC) and the Northwest Climate Science Center (NW CSC) awarded funds to seven projects that facilitate the use of traditional ecological knowledge to help inform natural and cultural resource management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided funds to the NPLCC for these projects, with two of the projects co-sponsored by the Northwest Climate Science Center. This profile is the first step in an ongoing effort to share information about these tribally led projects. It provides information on each of the grants awarded to tribes and First Nations in the NPLCC, and includes an overview of the NPLCC and the NW CSC. The profile showcases projects and shares the diverse ways in which tribal, First Nations and Alaska Native communities are gathering TEK, integrating this knowledge into resource management, and addressing gaps in climate change information. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/tdk_nplcc.asp
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Healthy Ecosystems Summit
In August 2012, the Snoqualmie Tribe of Washington celebrated indigenous knowledge systems by hosting the Traditional Knowledge and Healthy Ecosystems Summit. The Summit, held at the Skamania Lodge near Stevenson, WA, brought together indigenous leaders, tribal members, resource managers, academics and students to discuss and learn about the importance of traditional knowledge in natural resource management and in everyday ways of life. Participants came from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and British Columbia to partake in the various presentations, roundtables, panels, and workshops that formed part of this event. This profile describes some of the highlights from the event, including talks from keynote speakers Daniel Wildcat and Larry Merculiefff, storytelling by elders, presentations on traditional knowledge in contemporary resource management and indigenous health, and field trips featuring traditional sites and activities.
Vulnerability of Coastal Louisiana Tribes in a Climate Change Context
Living among the bayous in southern Louisiana, coastal tribes have a long history of vulnerability to and impacts from a range of environmental and human-caused events, including storms, subsidence, land sinking and shrinking, sea-level rise and oil spills. These events have posed uncommon challenges to these indigenous communities. In January 2012, several tribal communities from coastal Louisiana (including Grand Bayou Village, Grand Caillou/Dulac, Isle de Jean Charles and Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribes) met to “share knowledge, support, cultural connectivity and adaption strategies” in response to the significant environmental changes they face. This meeting, convened by the tribes and attended by the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), brought together local tribal members, national tribal leaders, faith leaders, government agency representatives, and resource specialists to share information on the various opportunities, resources, and programs available to tribal communities experiencing the impacts of large-scale environmental change. This profile explores the ways in which climate change may exacerbate the challenges already facing coastal Louisiana tribes and potential strategies to assist these tribes in addressing their vulnerability. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/gulfcoast_lacoastal.asp
First Stewards Symposium: Coastal Peoples Address Climate Change
In July 2012, four coastal treaty tribes from Washington State: the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Tribes and Quinault Indian Nation, hosted the First Stewards Symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington DC in recognition of the rapid changes coastal tribes are experiencing from climate change and changes in marine ecosystems. The Symposium convened coastal people from across the United States to discuss the impacts of climate change and strategies for mitigation and adaptation. Tribal leaders, governmental and non-governmental agency representatives, academics, and non-profit indigenous advocates came together to demonstrate the impacts of climate change in regions throughout the U.S. and its territories and how indigenous adaptations to climate change can guide society moving forward. The Symposium emphasized strategies to promote actions in society-at-large to adapt to climate change and discussed the opportunity for native people to be leaders and provide models for other native and non-native communities. The First Stewards Symposium led to a resolution illustrating the impacts of climate change on traditional ways of life and culture and calling for the formal recognition and inclusion of indigenous communities in the formation of policies, management and other government action. This profile highlights the speakers, issues and outcomes from the First Stewards Symposium. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/tdk_firststwrds.asp
Siletz Tribal Energy Program
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, located on the Oregon coast, have created an innovative renewable energy program. The Siletz Tribal Planning Department created the Siletz Tribal Energy Program (STEP) through a grant from the Administration for Native Americans in 2009. STEP works within the tribal community to encourage efficient energy use and reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Much of their work is focused on improving tribal buildings and homes. STEP prioritizes community involvement as a way to increase awareness of tribal members, promote skills-training in the tribal community and promote tribal independence in energy; tribal outreach is a major aspect of STEP’s work. This profile examines the ranges of their programs, including weatherization and energy efficiency, conservation, renewable power and solar. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_siletz.asp
Karuk Tribe: Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge within Natural Resource Management
Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) plays a significant role in the Karuk Tribe’s approach to natural resource management, which is guided by a respect for the relationships between species, their habitats and the belief that fostering ecosystem resilience is critical to ensuring sustainability. In 2010, the Karuk Tribe released a draft Eco-Cultural Resources Management Plan to create a long-term adaptation strategy for the protection, enhancement and utilization of cultural and natural resources. The Eco-Cultural Resources Management Plan establishes a framework for considering a wide range of human and environmental stressors to the Karuk Tribe, including climate change. This profile explores the role of traditional ecological knowledge in the Karuk Tribe’s Eco-Cultural Resource Management Plan, the ways in which this unique approach may contribute to tribal efforts to address climate change, and the importance of the federal-tribal relationship in addressing climate change. http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_karuk.asp
First Foods and Climate Change (Download First Foods Profile)
Indigenous populations in North America face significant threats from climate change. One area of great concern is how first foods will be impacted by climate change. Because of the vital role that first foods play in the physical, mental and spiritual health of native communities, impacts from climate change on first foods may negatively affect tribal culture and livelihood. This profile explores the challenges that indigenous peoples face in maintaining their historically important relationships with first foods in the context of climate change. The profile also outlines the impacts that climate change may have on many first foods, describes challenges facing indigenous peoples in continuing their relationship with first foods, and explore ways in which they have adapted or responded to these challenges. Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/tdk_firstfoods.asp
The Lummi Nation: Pursuing Clean Renewable Energy (Download Lummi Nation Profile)
The Lummi Nation has launched a number of renewable energy projects to reduce its environmental impact and to contribute to its goal of energy self-sufficiency. These projects include conducting a wind energy development feasibility assessment, lighting a walking trail with solar LEDs, installing a geothermal heat pump system for a new administrative building, and developing a strategic energy plan to coordinate future efforts. This profile provides detailed information on the wind energy development feasibility assessment project and also examines the opportunities and motivation that inspired the Lummi Nation to explore the options for renewable energy on their tribal lands. Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_lummi.asp
Climate Change: Realities of Relocation for Alaska Native Villages (Download Alaska Native Relocation Profile)
As temperatures across the Arctic rise at twice the global average, the impacts of climate change in Alaska are already being felt (IPCC 2007). Alaska Natives are among the most impacted in this region, and, according to the Government Accountability Office in 2004, flooding and erosion affected 86% of Alaska Native villages to some extent, and by 2009, the GAO reported that flooding and erosion imminently threatened thirty-one villages. This profile examines the challenges of relocation and offers examples from three Alaska Native villages working to protect their people, culture and natural resources.
Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/ak_inupiaq_AkRelocation.asp.
Swinomish Climate Change Initiative: At the Forefront of Planning for Climate Change (Download Swinomish Profile)
In 2007, the Swinomish Tribe passed a climate change proclamation in response to growing concerns about potential impacts of climate change on the Swinomish Indian Reservation. This profile highlights the projected climate change impacts on the tribe, the tribe’s planning process for the impact assessment and action plan development, as well as key partners and project successes and challenges.
Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_swinomish.asp
Climate Change and the Coquille Indian Tribe: Planning for the Effects of Climate Change and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Download Coquille Profile)
In 2008, the Coquille Indian Tribe established a Climate Change Committee to engage tribal government, tribal members, and natural and cultural resource managers in the development of a Climate Change Action Plan. This profile highlights key concerns and potential climate change impacts to the Coquille Tribe, and initial tribal strategies to address climate change.
Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_coquille.asp
Nez Perce Tribe: Carbon Sequestration Program (Download Nez Perce Profile)
In the 1990’s, the Nez Perce Forestry & Fire Management Division began developing a carbon offset strategy to market Carbon Sequestration Credits. This profile describes the tribe’s initial trial afforestation project, and their strategies for reinvesting revenue from the sale of carbon to invest in additional afforestation projects, wildlife rehabilitation and forest development.
Also available at: http://www4.nau.edu/tribalclimatechange/tribes/northwest_nezperce.asp
S
8 Tribes That Are Way Ahead of the Climate-Adaptation Curve
Terri Hansen
Source: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/15/8-tribes-are-way-ahead-climate-adaptation-curve-151763
10/15/13
Much has been made of the need to develop climate-change-adaptation plans, especially in light of increasingly alarming findings about how swiftly the environment that sustains life as we know it is deteriorating, and how the changes compound one another to quicken the pace overall. Studies, and numerous climate models, and the re-analysis of said studies and climate models, all point to humankind as the main driver of these changes. In all these dire pronouncements and warnings there is one bright spot: It may not be too late to turn the tide and pull Mother Earth back from the brink.
None of this is new to the Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island. Besides already understanding much about environmental issues via millennia of historical perspective, Natives are at the forefront of these changes and have been forced to adapt. Combining their preexisting knowledge with their still-keen ability to read environmental signs, these tribes are way ahead of the curve, with climate-change plans either in the making or already in effect.
1. Swinomish Tribe: From Proclamation to Action
On the southeastern peninsula of Fidalgo Island in Washington State, the Swinomish were the first tribal nation to pass a Climate Change proclamation, which they did in 2007. Since then they have implemented a concrete action plan.
The catalyst came in 2006, when a strong storm surge pushed tides several feet above normal, flooding and damaging reservation property. Heightening awareness of climate change in general, it became the tribe’s impetus for determining appropriate responses. The tribe began a two-year project in 2008, issued an impact report in 2009 and an action plan in 2010, said project coordinator and senior planner Ed Knight. The plan identified a number of proposed “next step” implementation projects, several of them now under way: coastal protection measures, code changes, community health assessment and wildfire protection, among others.
The tribe won funding through the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Administration for Native Americans to support the $400,000 Swinomish Climate Change Initiative, of which the tribe funded 20 percent. When work began in 2008, most estimates for sea level rise by the end of the century were in the range of one to one-and-a-half feet, with temperature changes ranging from three to five degrees Fahrenheit, said Knight. But those estimates did not take into account major melting in the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland, he said.
“Now, the latest reports reflect accelerated rates” of sea level rise and temperature increases, Knight said. Those are three to four feet or more, and six to nine degrees Fahrenheit, respectively, by 2100. “We are currently passing 400 ppm of CO2, on track for [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] worst-case scenarios.”
Since the Swinomish started work on climate issues, many tribes across the country have become active on these issues as they also realize the potential impacts to their communities and resources. The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) has been funded over the last few years to conduct climate adaptation training, Knight said, “and probably more than 100 tribes have now received training on this.”
2. Jamestown S’Klallam: Rising Sea Levels and Ocean Acidification
Jamestown S’Klallam tribal citizens live in an ecosystem that has sustained them for thousands of years, on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. Over the past two centuries they have successfully navigated societal changes, all while maintaining a connection to the resource-rich ecosystem of the region. Though they have also adapted to past climate variations, the magnitude and rapid rate of current and projected climate change prompted them to step it up. That became apparent when tribal members noticed ocean acidification in the failure of oyster and shellfish larvae.
The Jamestown S'Klallam are dealing with rising sea levels and ocean acidification. (Photo: ClimateAdaptation.org)
“Everyone who was part of the advisory group all had their personal testimony as to the changes they’d seen,” said Hansi Hals, the tribe’s environmental planning program manager, describing a meeting of a sideline group. “Everybody had something to say.”
Tribal members brought their concerns to the attention of the Natural Resources committee and tribal council three years ago, Hals said. This past summer they released their climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan, which identified key tribal resources, outlined the expected impacts from climate change and created adaptation strategies for each resource. It included sea-level-rise maps are for three time frames, near (low), mid-century (medium) and end of century (high).
3. Mescalero Apache: Bolstering Tribal Resilience
Tribal lands of the Mescalero Apache in southwestern New Mexico flank the Sacramento Mountains and border Lincoln National Forest, where increased frequency and intensity of wildfires is due to drought-compromised woodlands. Mike Montoya, director of the Mescalero Apache Tribe’s Fisheries Department, executive director of the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission and project leader for the Sovereign Nations Service Corps, a Mescalero-based AmeriCorps program, has observed climate-driven changes to the landscape in his years in natural resource management.
Mescalero Apache Tribe’s holding pond can contain 500,000 gallons of water and nourishes the community garden. (Photo courtesy Mescalero Apache Tribe)
The tribe has undertaken innovative environmental initiatives to help bolster tribal resilience to climate change impacts, Montoya said. One example is a pond constructed for alternative water supply to the fish hatchery in the event of a catastrophic flood event. It holds 500,000 gallons of water from a river 3,600 feet away.
“It’s all gravity fed,” Montoya said. “Now, with the aid of solar powered water pumps, we are able to supply water to our community garden.”
4. Karuk Tribe: Defending the Klamath River
With lands within and around the Klamath River and Six Rivers National Forests in northern California, the Klamath Tribe is implementing parts of its Eco-Cultural Resources Management Draft Plan released in 2010. The plan synthesizes the best available science, locally relevant observations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to help the Karuk create an integrated approach to addressing natural resource management and confront the potential impacts of climate change.
5. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: Strategic Planning
Fire management planning on Salish and Kootenai tribal lands in Montana. (Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
These tribes, who live in what is today known as Montana, issued a climate change proclamation in November 2012 and adopted a Climate Change Strategic Plan in 2013. The Tribal Science Council identified climate change and traditional ecological knowledge as the top two priorities for tribes across the nation in June 2011, according to Michael Durglo, the tribe’s division of environmental protection manager and climate change planning coordinator, as well as the National Tribal Science Council’s Region 8 representative.
So did the Inter-Tribal Timber Council, which his brother, Jim Durglo, is involved with. In fall 2012 the confederated tribes received financial support through groups affiliated with the Kresge foundation and from the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative to develop plans, Michael Durglo said. A year later, in September 2013, the tribes’ Climate Change Strategic Plan was completed and approved by the Tribal Council. Next the tribes will establish a Climate Change Oversight Committee.
“This committee will monitor progress, coordinate funding requests, continue research of [Traditional Ecological Knowledge], incorporate the strategic planning results into other guiding documents such as the Flathead Reservation Comprehensive Resource Management Plan and others, and update the plan on a regular basis based on updated science,” said Michael Durglo.
6. Nez Perce: Preservation Via Carbon Sequestration
More than a decade ago the Nez Perce Tribe, of the Columbia River Plateau in northern Idaho, recognized carbon sequestration on forested lands as a means of preserving natural resources and generating jobs and income, while reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. In the mid to late 1990s the Nez Perce Forestry & Fire Management Division developed a carbon offset strategy to market carbon sequestration credits. The purpose of the afforestation project, about 400 acres in size, was to establish marketable carbon offsets, develop an understanding of potential carbon markets and cover the costs of project implementation and administration. 
Nez Perce project before and after. (Photo: NAU ITEP)
As carbon markets soften and actual project development slows, the tribe cites the increased awareness and education of other tribes of the carbon sales process and opportunities for more carbon sequestration projects in Indian country as its biggest accomplishment of the last two years.
Photo: NAU ITEP
7. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians: Attacking Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This tribe in southern California has taken numerous steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change on tribal peoples, land and resources. In 1998 the tribe formed the Santa Ynez Chumash Environmental Office.
“We are also looking into opening a public compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station, replacing our fleet with CNG vehicles, are installing EV charging stations, implementing an innovative home, and building upgrade training program through an EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant,” said Santa Ynez environmental director Joshua Simmons.
SYCEO’s projects are numerous and have had impressive results, including major reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. An example is the Chumash Casino’s implementation of a shuttle bus program that eliminated 800,000 car trips in 2009, replacing them with 66,000 bus trips. The casino is reducing its energy consumption, chemical waste and use of one-use materials. It also has an extensive rainwater and gray water collection and treatment system. Many of these initiatives have economic benefits and provide a model and economic incentive for tribal and non-tribal businesses to implement similar changes.
8. Newtok Village: Ultimate Adaptation Plan—Evacuation
This Native village on the western coast of Alaska is home to some of the U.S.’s first climate refugees. They leapfrogged over mere adaptation-mitigation as sea and river cut through and then eroded the permafrost beneath their village and a 1983 assessment found that the community would be endangered within 25 to 30 years. In 1994 Newtok began work on what then seemed the ultimate adaptation plan: relocation.
They selected Mertarvik nine miles to the south as the relocation site in 1996. Their efforts intensified when a study by the Army Corps of Engineers found that the highest point in the village would be below sea level by 2017. The Newtok community, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations formed the Newtok Planning Group in 2006, but as Newtok’s administrator Stanley Tom searched for funding he struck little pay dirt. Mostly, he hit walls. Now Tom is calling for evacuation, exposing it as the true ultimate in adaptation.
"It's really happening right now,” He told the Guardian last May. “The village is sinking and flooding and eroding."
Tom told the British newspaper that he was moving his own belongings to the new, still very sparse village site over the summer–and advised fellow villagers to start doing the same.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/15/8-tribes-are-way-ahead-climate-adaptation-curve-151763
S
Principle 7g
Local Relevance
The Untold Story of Western Ranchers and their Epic Battle Against Coal
ALONG THE TONGUE RIVER, Montana — A short distance from Mark Fix’s weathered ranch house on the Tongue River in southeastern Montana, a wide overgrown trench cuts through part of his property. Dating to the 1920s, it’s a relic of a long-ago plan to construct a railroad along the river, an effort that foundered on the shoals of the Great Depression. Read more…
Wally McRae and Clint McRae on their ranch
The Untold Story of Western Ranchers and their Epic Battle Against Coal
ALONG THE TONGUE RIVER, Montana — A short distance from Mark Fix’s weathered ranch house on the Tongue River in southeastern Montana, a wide overgrown trench cuts through part of his property. Dating to the 1920s, it’s a relic of a long-ago plan to construct a railroad along the river, an effort that foundered on the shoals of the Great Depression.
Nearly a century later, that railway dream has been revived, in order to link a proposed, and very controversial, coal mine south of Fix’s ranch to a main rail line to the north. The prospect of the new mine and railroad is one of the sparks igniting a bitter fight over exporting coal, to China and other Asian nations, that spreads from the ranch country here all the way to Washington and Oregon, where three new coal export facilities — the first on the U.S. West Coast — have been proposed.
The stakes in this fight are huge, not just for local community concerns centered on traffic disruptions from increased coal traffic and possible health impacts, but for the U.S. as a whole and its commitment to fighting climate change.
As Fix said about a prospective surge in coal exports to Asia during a recent tour of his ranch, “It makes absolutely no sense. For every ton of coal we send to China they send two tons of CO2 back.”
This region of vast grasslands, rolling hills, buttes and river canyons is rich in history and strife. Home to countless bison and other game, it drew competing fur trappers and traders in the 1830s. A generation later, Native American tribes — Cheyenne and Lakota — fought tenaciously to maintain their homeland against the incursions of white settlers moving west on the Bozeman Trail. Led by storied chiefs and warriors, including Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, the Lakota fought the U.S. Army in the 1870s, culminating in the Great Sioux War of 1876-1877 that included their victory over General George A. Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn before their ultimate defeat and forced exodus.
In the 1970s, ranchers in this corner of the Powder River Basin and to the west in the Bull Mountains banded together in revolt against a plan by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and electric utilities to build 42 coal-fired power plants in the Northern Plains, half of them in Montana. That North Central Power Study would have used half the flow of the mighty Yellowstone River for power plant cooling, plus huge amounts of water critical to ranching from other rivers like the Tongue.
Colstrip Power Plant, Colstrip MT
Those ranchers founded the Northern Plains Resource Council to defend local agricultural economies, and they played a key role in winning state and federal laws regulating strip mining and in defeating most of the proposed power plants. The only facility that was constructed in Montana was the giant Colstrip Power Plant, still going full blast with a capacity of more than 2,000 megawatts about 40 miles southwest of Fix’s ranch. Even so, today the Powder River Basin supplies more than 40 percent of the nation’s coal, almost all of it from federal lands. As the Obama administration has promised to aggressively confront climate change with its left hand, with its right it has sold leases to more than two billions tons of federal coal, most of that in the Powder River Basin that alone is responsible for about 13 percent of U.S. carbon pollution.
Now some of those same ranchers, joined by others new to the fight, are again battling the coal industry. With domestic coal-fired electricity on the decline, the industry sees the Powder River Basin’s rich coal reserves and proposed export terminals on the west coast that would ship coal to Asia as the keys to reviving its flagging fortunes. It is fast becoming an epic confrontation, stretching from the Northern Plains to the Pacific Northwest, with activists in ranching communities, small towns and large cities uniting to defend against local impacts as small as traffic jams and global effects as monumental as climate change.
It begins here, along the Tongue River, and Fix, a former chairman of the Northern Plains Resource Council, is in the thick of it. His family hails from Colorado but moved to far eastern Montana where his father had a small business contract-harvesting wheat. Fix is a mechanical engineer by training, and worked for Boeing in the Northwest on 757 and 767 jets, and in the plains states on Minuteman ballistic missile batteries. For the past two decades he’s been raising black angus cattle along the Tongue, which flows north out of the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming 265 miles to its confluence with the Yellowstone River in Miles City, Montana about a half hour north of Fix’s ranch.
The Tongue is the lifeblood of Fix’s ranch. He owns water rights to 750 acre feet of water a year, which is essential to growing the alfalfa that feeds his cattle in the winter, as well as to the barley and wheat he raises for market. Water quality is a key concern, and he and other ranchers have fought with upstream coal bed methane developers in Wyoming whose wastewater that is a byproduct of drilling for gas is high in salinity and if carelessly handled can degrade the Tongue.
But revived plans for a Tongue River Railroad are his biggest current threat. Various iterations date to the mid-1980s, but now the federal Surface Transportation Board is overseeing a new environmental impact statement on the latest version, a roughly 80-mile route from the proposed Otter Creek Mine near Ashland, Montana to the Miles City area. Two of the possible alternative routes for the railroad would bisect Fix’s ranch.
The Otter Creek Mine would be built by Arch Coal and produce about 20 million tons of coal a year. Arch successfully bid on the state coal lease at Otter Creek in 2010, giving it the right to mine 8,300 acres, and bringing its holdings in the area to 1.5 billion tons of coal. Among other things, the Otter Creek Mine would be a glaring environmental irony. The state of Montana was given the land by the federal government as compensation for the loss of jobs and income stemming from an environmental victory announced by President Bill Clinton in 1996 which killed a proposed gold mine just outside Yellowstone National Park.
Arch Coal, co-owner of the Tongue River Railroad along with railroad giant BNSF (owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway) and Forrest Mars Jr., the billionaire scion of the Mars candy empire, has made no secret of its intent to export the Otter Creek Coal. Chairman and CEO Steven F. Leer said at the time that the acquisition of those Powder River Basin reserves would help the company meet U.S. demand as well as “supply additional coal for expert to emerging Asia.”
As he gives a tour of his ranch, Fix describes a series of parochial concerns about the railroad’s potential impacts, beginning with the company’s ability to take some of his land by eminent domain for the right of way. The threat of range fires, always serious, would increase with train traffic and the sparks it generates. Ground disturbance during construction would invite hard to eradicate invasive plants like leafy spurge and spotted knapweed. The rail line would create a wall between the river and part of his land, blocking cows from water, reducing the size of his calving pasture and potentially trapping his cattle in a floodplain during spring runoff.
And then, Fix adds, is the climate dimension. Fix blames climate change for an increase in extreme weather that this year included a ferocious wind event that tore off parts of his ranch house roof and those of several outbuildings, and also sheered off and tore up dozens of majestic cottonwood trees by the river. He worries that worse impacts are on the horizon if the U.S. commits to even more coal mining in his region and sends that coal to be burned in Asian power plants.
Wally McRae and Clint McRae on their ranch
About 20 miles southeast of Colstrip, along Rosebud Creek, Wally McRae and his son, Clint McRae, may be even fiercer opponents of the mine and railroad. Their Rocker Six Cattle Company lies in the path of the preferred alternative route for the railroad, which would cross 9 miles of their land.
Wally McRae is an acclaimed cowboy poet who in 1990 was honored with a National Heritage Award from the National Endowment for the Humanities. His poem “Things of Intrinsic Worth” is a stirring lament about the toll strip mining for coal takes on treasured landscapes and the ranching way of life. He’s sometimes described as grouchy or cantankerous, but he’s generous with his time and knowledge during a lengthy interview on his son’s deck one recent evening. As the two men talked, they nervously eyed dry lightning flickering in the distance and fretted about a repeat of the complex of wildfires that torched a half million acres of southeast Montana last year and damaged their ranch.
Of the proposed railroad, the elder McRae says, “I’ve been fighting this deal for 30 years. If you let your guard down you end up on the canvas.”
Recalling the North Central Power Study, Clint McRae reiterates an oft-repeated theme from that era. “We’re in eastern Montana and we don’t count,” he says. “This is a sacrifice area for the state and we’re sick of it.”
“The tide has turned against coal,” he adds, and exports are “their only way out.” The coal industry is turning to Asia because “it’s the only market left, they can’t compete.”
The preferred railroad route would block free access between the ranch’s summer and winter pastures. Instead of a bridge with a wide opening that the cattle could easily go under, the railroad has proposed a narrow culvert under the tracks. Wally McRae says cattle are averse to culverts but that the Surface Transportation Board has told him his cattle will learn to go through it. Being instructed by bureaucrats on the nature of cattle is not so amusing to third generation rancher Wallace D. McRae.
That brings to mind the words of the late Montana rancher Boyd Charter, who helped found the Northern Plains Resource Council, when he was approached by a coal company land man seeking to buy his ranch: “I told that son-of-a-bitch with a briefcase that I knew he represented one of the biggest coal companies and he was backed by one of the richest industries in the world, but no matter how much money they came up with, they would always be $4.60 short of the price of my ranch … Some people cannot understand that money is not everything … He must have decided that I was stupid, because he offered me a contract for one dollar entitling him to explore for coal. I had to tell him the door swings out just the way it swings in.”
In southeast Montana, when it comes to coal exports and the price they would exact, the door is increasingly swinging out.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/04/2548821/coal-exports-ranchers/
Principle 7h
Misconceptions about this Principle
The Misconception
Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
The misconception or myth goes something like this: “Humans are not capable of impacting forces as large as the climate. The climate system is simply too vast, too complicated.”
The Science
Humans can change the atmosphere and the atmosphere has a profound influence over the climate.
The science says: yes, it’s easy to feel insignificant relative to weather events like hurricanes and floods, and indeed as individuals we are. But through our collective pollution, we are capable of changing the atmosphere. Just look at the photo of a not-uncommon day in Bejing, China at left. That’s not fog, it is pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels. And when you change the atmosphere in the ways we have been changing it, you change the climate. Read more…
Source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm
The Science
Humans can change the atmosphere and the atmosphere has a profound influence over the climate.
The science says: yes, it’s easy to feel insignificant relative to weather events like hurricanes and floods, and indeed as individuals we are. But through our collective pollution, we are capable of changing the atmosphere. Just look at the photo of a not-uncommon day in Bejing, China at left. That’s not fog, it is pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels. And when you change the atmosphere in the ways we have been changing it, you change the climate.
Since the industrial revolution, humans have made significant changes to the make-up of our atmosphere. There are now over 7.3 billion people, and together, when we heat, cool, and light our homes; drive our cars; and manufacture the material possessions we all love and use, we are unintentionally changing the atmosphere.
Without a doubt the most significant of all the human changes to the atmosphere has been the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. After remaining relatively steady for the last 650,000 years or more, in just the last two hundred years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shot from 280, to more than 400 parts per million. And it’s still rising. This dramatic increase has all taken place at the same time as humans have been burning fossil fuels at a greater and greater rate.
Of course there are also natural sources of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as vegetation and volcanoes, but fortunately there are differences that scientists can measure between the CO2 derived from fossil fuels and the CO2 derived from plants or volcanoes. The changing concentrations of the two types demonstrate that the additional CO2 can only be the result of human activity. Check out the video at right to see how much CO2 New York City adds to the atmosphere every second.
Of course, as CO2 is the most common of greenhouse gasses, the additional concentration is what causes most of the rise in temperature. This is resulting in a change in climate patterns and ocean currents; the melting of global ice formations; and an increase in extreme weather events.
So, yes; though we might be pretty helpless when it comes to controlling the weather, humans are certainly capable of changing the world’s climate.
Check your Knowledge of this Principle
To pass this knowledge check you will need to have read the main paragraphs for each topic of the principle.