The high and low points for #ClimateChange in 2019 — Yale #Climate Connections #ActOnClimate

From Yale Climate Solutions (Bud Ward):

Climate scientists list most encouraging, most discouraging, developments of 2019. (Part II, to come, on outlook for 2020)

Credit: Tom Toro via Yale Climate Solutions.

Picture it this way just for fun: Three scientists walk into a bar.

They join a few more, early arrivals, and soon after are joined by yet a few more; like them, perhaps, taking a respite from the intensity of consecutive long days of highly technical PowerPoint presentations at an annual year-end mega-conference.

The casual talk soon turns to their views of 2019’s most ENcouraging and most DIScouraging developments in their field. (Part II will explore scientists’ and crystal ball visions of the coming new year’s major developments – hoped-for, feared, or just expected best they can see down the road.)

Actually, of course, that’s not at all how it happened in what follows, not even close. Instead, those quoted below, each invited by the author, responded to an email seeking their views of high and low points of the year just ending, and their outlooks for the year just about to start.

Bright spots in an otherwise dim 2019 climate year
Perhaps not surprisingly, the youth movements – personified by, but not limited to, Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg, Time magazine’s 2019 “Person of the Year” – get several mentions, kudos.

Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future” international movement “changed the conversation in useful ways,” said Jeff Severinghaus, PhD, of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego. “Instead of half-hearted national ambitions, the focus is now on the spectacular failure of today’s adults to solve a problem that will primarily impact the future of today’s children.

“It highlights the moral dimension of the climate problem,” according to Severinghaus, a member of the National Academy of Sciences: “One group harming another by abdication of responsibility is widely considered to be immoral.”

Maureen Raymo, PhD, of Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, along with Alan Robock, PhD., of Rutgers University and National Academy of Sciences member Peter H. Gleick, PhD, president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, also single out Thunberg and youth activism for praise. Raymo wrote that she is “heartened by the rapidly expanding engagement of youth and young adults in the climate movement. They appreciate that it is their future at stake.”

Going beyond the youths’ activities, Don Wuebbles, PhD, University of Illinois, said he finds particularly encouraging “the new science and technology developments being discussed that may help greatly reduce future greenhouse gas emissions.” He singled out developments in solar energy “in and of itself, and also the potential to use solar energy for high-temperature industrial applications.”

Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, of Texas Tech, said that, looking beyond the U.S., she is very encouraged by real-world, large-scale, system-wide actions that are being taken by countries around the world. For example:

  • Canada (my home) has a federal price on carbon and re-elected the party that introduced it (as compared to Australia where they were voted out and the carbon tax was flushed down the toilet).
  • The United Kingdom has (at least temporarily) imposed a moratorium on fracking.
  • Finland is phasing out coal and it will be banned by 2029.
  • Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is divesting from companies dedicated to oil and gas exploration.
  • Ireland became the first country in the world to divest from fossil fuels entirely (they voted on it in 2018 but I am counting it for this year since it takes a while to accomplish!).
  • New Zealand has committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, and Scotland by 2045. Additionally, nearly 70% of Scotland’s electricity is already green.
  • Hayhoe said she is encouraged by “the increasing awareness of the climate crisis and its coverage by the media,” and she pointed to youth protests, major IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports, and “the Trump Administration’s rejection of the science and rollback of environmental protections.” She also said public awareness of climate change implications has been driven by “the increasingly severe events we have been experiencing as a result of climate change loading the natural weather dice against us.”

    Social scientist and international relations expert David Victor, PhD, of UCSD and Scripps, said he finds satisfaction in 2019 from “the expansion of carbon neutrality goals across more of the U.S. states.” And Andrew Dessler, PhD, of Texas A&M University, pointed to “the continued reduction in the price of renewables” as especially encouraging. “This alone might keep us below the RCP4.5 trajectory,”* Dessler wrote. “That’s good news!”

    Finding yet more “good news,” Gleick pointed to “serious efforts by some Democratic presidential candidates to develop real climate plans.”

    A flood of bad news from the year now ending
    All that is not to put too rosy a picture on a year that also had abundant disappointments on climate change issues.

    Turning to that side of the ledger, Wuebbles singled out as “most discouraging” the lack of progress on policy issues by the U.S. “and around the world.” Agreeing, Severinghaus decried “the current U.S. administration’s rollback of dozens of Obama-era positive climate mitigation” initiatives. “And the increasing use of disinformation on many fronts to weaken our democracy, and push the U.S. toward becoming a petroleum autocracy like Russia or Saudi Arabia.”

    Lack of federal action in the U.S. is “obviously” a major disappointment in looking at 2019, according to Dessler. “A close second is the continued hollowing-out of the U.S. federal government’s ability to use science to make decisions.” He said he fears many senior federal scientists are being driven to leave civil service and added: “This will make it easier for politicians to make decisions that go against science and satisfy narrow constituencies rather than society as a whole. … Don’t expect things to snap back to the way they were before Trump.”

    Those losses of federal scientific expertise come just as “new science is pointing to climate change actually being an even larger issue than we already thought,” according to Wuebbles. He pointed in particular to “more significant severe weather issues and higher climate sensitivity in new models suggesting longer-term impacts.”

    ‘So many depressing scientific studies’
    “There ARE no encouraging advances in climate science in my opinion,” said Hayhoe. “just more bad news, punctuated by the occasional not-so-bad news.”

    “It is truly hard to choose among so many depressing new scientific studies, so I would say in general: the trend towards recognizing that, increasingly and in many (but not all) ways, the scientific consensus has under-estimated the rate, magnitude, and/or extent of climate impacts on both human systems and the natural environment,” Hayhoe said. “This is not new – we’ve been seeing this for a number of years already – but there were a number of studies this year that continued to reinforce this discouraging trend.”

    “Also discouraging,” she said, “is the fact that our carbon emissions continue to rise, globally, despite so many efforts that are being made to reduce them.”

    Victor characterized as discouraging the U.S.’s formal notice of withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. But he cautioned that “it is easy to overstate that” because he expects the U.S. will rejoin “when Trump is gone.”

    An enduring concern, Victor said, is that “actions on Paris undermine U.S. credibility, and the damage from that will be lasting – as they will from our actions in Syria and many other places.”

    In addition, Victor cautioned that “the ongoing (often petty) expansion of the trade war with China will amplify the damage to the U.S.-China relationship. That relationship is fraught with challenges that go far beyond the Trump administration, but it is impossible to get serious about climate without a serious engagement with China.”

    Katharine Hayhoe’s concerns that our fears ‘could doom us’
    What is it that makes Hayhoe “profoundly discouraged” right now? Hayhoe, seen as one of the nation’s most effective climate science communicators, spelled it out this way:

    “I am profoundly discouraged by how quickly this [increased popular awareness of climate change] turns into fear, and fear turns into judgment, and judgment turns into circling the wagons and attacking each other.

    “Climate fear is turning into a new religion (because what is religion other than a set of behavioral rules we obey because we believe they will make us right in our own eyes, and perhaps those of others and/or a god?) with a brand-new set of 10 commandments: Thou shalt not eat meat or animal products, thou shalt not fly, thou shalt not use any mechanized transportation, thou shalt not have a child – that we then use to persecute any we perceive to be heretics with the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition.

    “If there is any trend I am most discouraged by this past year, it is this. I used to fear that apathy could doom us – now, I fear that it is our fear that will.”

    *Editor’s note: RCP4.5 is an IPCC scenario in which average global surface temperatures would rise about 3 degrees C (about 4.8 degrees F) by 2100.

    Tom Toro is a cartoonist and writer who has published more than 200 cartoons in The New Yorker since 2010.

    Can a grand vision solve the #ColoradoRiver’s challenges? Or will incremental change offer best hope for success? #COriver #aridification

    From the Water Education Foundation (Gary Pitzer):


    Some Colorado River water users in 2020 will begin taking voluntary reductions to protect the water elevation level at Lake Mead. (Source: Bureau of Reclamation)

    The Colorado River is arguably one of the hardest working rivers on the planet, supplying water to 40 million people and a large agricultural economy in the West. But it’s under duress from two decades of drought and decisions made about its management will have exceptional ramifications for the future, especially as impacts from climate change are felt.

    The issues facing water users are many, complex and span the entirety of the 1,450-mile river and its tributaries. The Colorado is overallocated, meaning more water is committed to water users as a whole than is available in an average year. Adding more pressure, the Upper Basin states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico want to develop their full allocations. American Indian tribes, meanwhile, are asserting their rights to more of the river’s waters.

    Amid these challenges, and with critical negotiations looming for an agreement that will chart how the river is operated and managed possibly for decades, a debate is emerging: Should stakeholders pursue a visionary “grand bargain” to wrap their arms around the host of challenges facing the Colorado River? Or is an incremental approach – solving the puzzle piece by piece instead of the whole puzzle at once — the best path toward getting disparate stakeholders to reach a consensus?

    READ: EDITOR’S NOTE: Exploring Different Approaches for Solving the Colorado River’s Myriad Challenges

    Colorado River Basin. Map credit: The Water Education Foundation

    The stakes are high. Parties with an interest in the river will renegotiate the 2007 Interim Guidelines for shortage sharing and river operations that expire in 2026. The landmark 2007 deal spelled out Lower Basin shortage guidelines and rules to store conserved water in Lake Mead and equalize storage in both Mead and Lake Powell. Those issues have become even more critical as a two-decade drought and a structural deficit continue to drop the level in Lake Mead.

    The debate surfaced anew in September at the Water Education Foundation’s Colorado River Symposium in Santa Fe, N.M. Panelists representing major stakeholders across the basin repeatedly invoked the idea of an incremental vs. a visionary approach as key interests prepare for those guideline negotiations, expected to begin in late 2020.

    David Palumbo, the Bureau of Reclamation’s deputy commissioner, challenged the notion of a dividing line between incrementalism and grand visionary, suggesting to symposium participants that the two can coexist and are not mutually exclusive.

    “Incrementalism is not small,” he said. “It is visionary and … maybe … we can purge our vernacular from this idea of incrementalism, at least the connotation that it’s small, that it’s not visionary.”

    In a region that has seen its share of big projects and prolonged drought, some have said the time is right to take unprecedented problem-solving steps such as reopening the terms of the Colorado River Compact, the landmark 1922 document that divided the river into two basins and apportioned its waters.

    Obstacles and Challenges

    Since the Compact was signed in 1922 and then ratified by Congress in 1928, Colorado River water users have successfully navigated obstacles by a variety of means. Those include landmark deals for shortage sharing and voluntary use reductions to help protect Lake Mead’s water level and keep it from reaching dead pool – the point at which no water could pass Hoover Dam for downstream water users. Set to expire in 2026, the current operating guidelines for water deliveries and shortage sharing are designed to prevent disputes that could provoke conflict.

    There is a sense among some that a big plan is needed for 2026 and beyond.

    “We need to be more creative in our work and I think incrementalism should be thrown out of the dictionary and we should all become visionary,” Ted Kowalski, senior program officer with the Walton Family Foundation, said at the symposium. He formerly served as chief of the Interstate, Federal and Water Information Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board.

    Kowalski does not advocate reopening the Compact but believes creativity is needed in all aspects of the river’s operating agreements to support a vision that reconnects it with the Sea of Cortez, such as what occurred through a U.S.-Mexico agreement in 2014.

    Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman supports collaboration and cooperation between Basins within the confines of the Compact. (Source: Water Education Foundation)

    Advocates of incrementalism say it makes sense to maintain the course of collaboration and cooperation, staying within the existing framework of the Law of the River – the all-encompassing term that describes the compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, and contracts and regulatory guidelines that oversee the use and management of the river among the seven basin states and Mexico.

    Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman is no fan of reopening the Colorado River Compact to forge a grand bargain.

    “I see all these challenges on the river, but I don’t see a clear or a better outcome for this Basin by assuming that all of these challenges could be easily addressed if we were simply to rip up our founding document, the Compact, and start over,” she said at the symposium.

    Former Interior Secretary and Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt echoed that sentiment, saying at the symposium that it’s not the time to begin a big negotiation about the Compact prior to 2026.

    “I’m not a Compact modifier because every time I read that I say, ‘Man, if you can’t find your way to a consensus past that document, you better go back to school, because there’s all kinds of possibilities out there of reconciling these differences rather than stacking them up and sending out our respective advocates to build anticipatory cases,” he said.

    Big River, Big Vision

    Much of the discussion about Colorado River water use involves semantics. Can the many agreements enacted through years be categorized as incremental progress or evidence of a grander vision? Or is that characterization even the right way to view all the actions that have built dams and aqueducts, solidified water sharing agreements and provided for environmental needs.

    Long-time policy participants say the scale and scope of what’s occurred in the past century has not been done piecemeal.

    “The Colorado River Compact was not incremental,” Jim Lochhead, chief executive officer and manager of Denver Water, said at the symposium. “It was based on a huge idea of a major dam on the river and the All-American Canal. And it was premised on a lot of structural development in the Upper Basin.”

    Bruce Babbitt, former secretary of the Interior and Arizona governor, said modifying the Colorado River Compact is not necessary for long-lasting solutions. (Source: Water Education Foundation)

    On the flip side, he said, there have been environmental actions — the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act — that created a legacy of stewardship and balance on the river.

    Babbitt said stakeholders can be locked into a narrow focus on the river and their relationship with it.

    “All of us have tended for these vision discussions to be compartmentalized into sort of Lower Basin/Upper Basin, as if there’s kind of a virtual curtain across the basin line in which our best efforts at vision tend to look into our basin,” he said.

    Major players “need to be out there in this basin, working the vision not via a negotiation, but by some real outreach to talk about the future,” Babbitt said.

    One possible element of a bold, visionary approach that has been talked about would remove the Lower Basin’s legal right to “call” for water during dry times that was established by the Compact. Under the Compact, the Upper Basin cannot cause flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet for any period of 10 consecutive years.

    According to a November white paper called “The Risk of Curtailment Under the Colorado River Compact,” a debate has swirled since the drafting of the Compact as to whether this imposes a delivery obligation on the Upper Basin states, or merely a requirement that those states not deplete the flows of the river beyond that amount. That debate has intensified as projections of a drying basin have raised concerns that the water won’t be there to meet the obligation to the Lower Basin.

    “A delivery obligation (as opposed to a non-depletion obligation) would mean the Upper Basin must absorb any climate change reductions to the flows in the Colorado River … even if that requires curtailing existing uses,” says the paper, written by Anne Castle, senior fellow with the Getches-Wilkinson Center at the University of Colorado Law School, and John Fleck, director of the University of New Mexico’s Water Resources Program.

    Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Gov. Stephen Roe Lewis advocates early engagement of tribes in the decision-making process. (Source: Water Education Foundation)

    Meanwhile, American Indian tribes in the Colorado River Basin want access to water allocations that are rightfully theirs, but which have not been developed. Combined, tribes have rights to more water than some states in the Basin. That means inclusion, collaboration and cooperation are crucial.

    “What I’m advocating for is that the Basin states engage with tribes early on and incorporate them into the decision-making process,” Gov. Stephen Roe Lewis of the Gila River Indian Community said at the symposium. “Especially if tribes can bring something meaningful and innovative to the table to help address the difficult challenges we all face in managing our water resources.”

    Looking Ahead to 2026

    Because the task of creating a revised framework for the operation of the Colorado River in 2026 is so monumental, leadership from key players is critical, said Michael Cohen, senior researcher with the Pacific Institute, a water think tank that promotes sustainable water policy.

    Through the years, Colorado River water users have deployed several tools to hone water use accounting and conducted mutually beneficial interstate sharing agreements, actions that were previously unheard of and far from incremental in nature, he said.

    “There’s been significant changes in the river to date, and we like to call them incremental, and that’s how they’re framed,” Cohen said. “But what we’ve seen is dramatic change.”

    The 2007 Interim Guidelines to better coordinate the operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead are an example of the dramatic change that’s enabled users to prevent Lake Mead dropping to levels that crash the system. Forged from long-standing water accounting issues between the Upper and the Lower Basins, including the obligation to meet water deliveries to Mexico, the imbroglio resulted in then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton essentially strong-arming the Basin states to get together and resolve their disputes.

    Former Reclamation Commissioner Robert Johnson said at the symposium that Norton warned stakeholders that if they didn’t solve the problem, she would.

    “She was basically throwing down the gauntlet, an approach that Bruce Babbitt took frequently when he was secretary,” Johnson said. “That was the start of the 2007 guidelines, and true to form, the Basin states came through. They went far beyond just defining on an interim period. I’m sure that the disagreement over the legal aspects of the delivery to Mexico is still there, but the interim guidelines solved that problem for 20 years by putting operational procedures in place.”

    Chuck Cullom, manager of Colorado River programs with the Central Arizona Project, said programs such as the 2007 guidelines, compensated conservation programs and voluntary use reductions demonstrate what can happen within the existing framework of laws and regulations to achieve resiliency.

    There is a “false choice” between visionary focus and incrementalism, he said, adding that he describes it as incremental transformation. That transformation is evident in interstate and intrastate agreements in which people invested their time and resources to take concepts from development to implementation.

    “It is not possible to understand all of the intended and unintended costs of an incremental transformation without testing it first,” Cullom said. “Metropolitan Water District took that concept in the early 90s to demonstrate that water could be saved in Lake Mead by investing with Palo Verde Irrigation District. There was no clear accounting framework to make all that happen, but they created a pathway for intentionally created surplus to be something that we’re all using on the river today.”

    Incremental Progress

    The challenges facing Colorado River water users are varied and complicated. The decline of water levels in Lake Mead spurred Basin states to sign on to a Drought Contingency Plan in May after more than five years of discussion. Yet Imperial Irrigation District, the river’s largest water rights holder, walked away from the agreement because it failed to address air and water quality issues of a shrinking Salton Sea.

    Robert Johnson served as commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation between 2006 and 2009. (Source: Water Education Foundation)

    If the past is a reliable indicator, the answers going forward will build on the legacy of cooperation and innovation while steering away from precedent-setting action.

    “There’s lots of increments that have gotten us to where we are today,” Palumbo with Reclamation said. “And those are visionary actions that were taken. They were visionary at the time and as we reflect on them, they’re visionary today.”

    Water providers are “too humble” in describing the collective efforts taken to brace against the conditions caused by drought and an overallocated system, Cullom said. “We talk about increments,” he said. “We need to say these are visionary. The system conservation project (in which agricultural users were compensated for conserving water) is a visionary thing instead of an incremental approach to protecting Lake Mead.”

    Reclamation Commissioner Burman said she believes there is much left to be done to solidify river management between the Upper and Lower basins.

    “I don’t think we’re even close to being done with innovation and flexibility,” she said. “We have tools we haven’t invented yet and we have so much still to learn and do and cooperate and collaborate on this river.”

    Does that mean renegotiating the Colorado River Compact is off the table?

    “If you merely asked should we reopen the Compact, perhaps everyone can imagine that outcome would be better for their interest group, but I really question how could it be simultaneously better for all of our interest groups?” Burman said. “Looking for a panacea in that Compact renegotiation is just the wrong investment of time and talent.”

    Castle with the University of Colorado Law School said the time is now for communities to bolster themselves against a future supply shock through varying responses, including clarifying shortage sharing rules and setting up voluntary, compensated water conservation programs.

    “We think that any of those discussions need to be based on an objective risk assessment that could lead to either incremental or more radical approaches to Colorado River management,” she said in an email, referring to herself and Fleck, her research paper coauthor.

    Castle, who served as assistant secretary for water and science at the Department of the Interior in the Obama administration, believes there is a false dichotomy between the incremental and visionary characterization of river management.

    “I suggest that the best way to proceed is to have an articulated visionary goal with specific incremental steps to get there,” she wrote. “The vision is needed to guide choices along the way, but it’s not either desirable or realistic to suddenly make big changes in operations on the river, precipitously undermining investments and reliance on the previous status quo.”

    Scientists warn that a drying climate means Colorado River flows could diminish substantially in the next 50 years. The prospect of steep declines in flows adds a sense of urgency because of the potential impacts to the environment, cities and agriculture.

    Looking downstream at the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam tailrace. (Source: Bureau of Reclamation)

    “This river can turn on a dime, and we need to be prepared for it as a Basin,” said Lochhead, with Denver Water. “If we take too incremental of an approach, we could be caught short. We need to be aspirational in terms of what we think we can achieve and reach for that and get as far as we can in this next set of negotiations.”

    Kowalski, with the Walton Family Foundation, urged stakeholders to be innovative and not be afraid to act.

    “We need to remember the river in all of this,” he said. “It’s critically important to take care of the river as well as your service requirements. I want to challenge you … as we’re looking at the renegotiations, how do we do that and not just have it be for the benefit of the system but for the benefit of the river that sustains us all?”

    Reach Gary Pitzer:, Twitter: @gary_wef
    Know someone else who wants to stay connected with water in the West? Encourage them to sign up for Western Water, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.