Climate change literacy and education 9780841232051, 0841232059, 9780841232068, 0841232067, 9780841232327, 0841232326, 9780841232297

Table of contents :
Content: Preface 1. Climate Change Literacy and Education: History and Project Overview 2. Establishing a Pathway to Student Engagement in the Climate Change Discussion 3. Climate Science Education - Hope for Our Future 4. Science of the Anthropocene 5. Space Technologies Paired with Terrestrial Technology 6. Living Oceans 7. Climate Change, Protests, and Youth Movements: The Personal Side of Policy 8. A Change in Our Climate Perspective 9. Climate Change Politics in Canada Editors' Biographies Indexes

Citation preview

Climate Change Literacy and Education The Science and Perspectives from the Global Stage Volume 1

ACS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 1247

Climate Change Literacy and Education The Science and Perspectives from the Global Stage Volume 1 Keith E. Peterman, Editor York College of Pennsylvania York, Pennsylvania

Gregory P. Foy, Editor York College of Pennsylvania York, Pennsylvania

Matthew R. Cordes, Editor Writing Works, Ltd. Lehighton, Pennsylvania

Sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education

American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Distributed in print by Oxford University Press

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Peterman, Keith E., editor. | Foy, Gregory P., editor. | Cordes, Matthew R., editor. | American Chemical Society. Division of Chemical Education. Title: Climate change literacy and education / Keith E. Peterman, editor (York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania), Gregory P. Foy, editor (York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania), Matthew R. Cordes, editor (Writing Works, Ltd., Lehighton, Pennsylvania) ; sponsored by the ACS Division of Chemical Education. Description: Washington, DC : American Chemical Society, [2017]- | Series: ACS symposium series ; 1247, 1254 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: volume 1. The science and perspectives from the global stage -- volume 2. Social justice, energy, economics, and the Paris agreement Identifiers: LCCN 2017045512 (print) | LCCN 2017048554 (ebook) | ISBN 9780841232051 (ebook, v.1) | ISBN 9780841232297 (ebook, v.2) | ISBN 9780841232068 (v. 1) | ISBN 9780841232327 (v. 2) Subjects: LCSH: Climate change mitigation--International cooperation. | Greenhouse gas mitigation--International cooperation. Classification: LCC QC902.9 (ebook) | LCC QC902.9 .C57 2017 (print) | DDC 363.738/746--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045512

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48n1984. Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society Distributed in print by Oxford University Press All Rights Reserved. Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that a per-chapter fee of $40.25 plus $0.75 per page is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of pages in this book is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. The citation of trade names and/or names of manufacturers in this publication is not to be construed as an endorsement or as approval by ACS of the commercial products or services referenced herein; nor should the mere reference herein to any drawing, specification, chemical process, or other data be regarded as a license or as a conveyance of any right or permission to the holder, reader, or any other person or corporation, to manufacture, reproduce, use, or sell any patented invention or copyrighted work that may in any way be related thereto. Registered names, trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Foreword The ACS Symposium Series was first published in 1974 to provide a mechanism for publishing symposia quickly in book form. The purpose of the series is to publish timely, comprehensive books developed from the ACS sponsored symposia based on current scientific research. Occasionally, books are developed from symposia sponsored by other organizations when the topic is of keen interest to the chemistry audience. Before agreeing to publish a book, the proposed table of contents is reviewed for appropriate and comprehensive coverage and for interest to the audience. Some papers may be excluded to better focus the book; others may be added to provide comprehensiveness. When appropriate, overview or introductory chapters are added. Drafts of chapters are peer-reviewed prior to final acceptance or rejection, and manuscripts are prepared in camera-ready format. As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes. Verbatim reproductions of previous published papers are not accepted.

ACS Books Department

Contents Preface .............................................................................................................................. ix 1.

Climate Change Literacy and Education: History and Project Overview ......... 1 Keith E. Peterman

2.

Establishing a Pathway to Student Engagement in the Climate Change Discussion ................................................................................................................ 15 Anthony J. Tomaine

3.

Climate Science Education – Hope for Our Future ............................................ 25 Gregory P. Foy and R. Leigh Hill Foy

4.

Science of the Anthropocene ................................................................................. 49 Nicole M. DeLuca

5.

Space Technologies Paired with Terrestrial Technology .................................... 67 David John Millard

6.

Living Oceans ......................................................................................................... 79 N. A. Ingram

7.

Climate Change, Protests, and Youth Movements: The Personal Side of Policy ....................................................................................................................... 91 Nina D. Diklich

8.

A Change in Our Climate Perspective ............................................................... 105 Kaitlyn Teppert

9.

Climate Change Politics in Canada .................................................................... 115 Kowan T. V. O’Keefe

Editors’ Biographies .................................................................................................... 131

Indexes Author Index ................................................................................................................ 135 Subject Index ................................................................................................................ 137

vii

Preface The ACS Climate Change Public Policy Statement recommends that “The U.S. Government should promote climate science literacy and education for citizens and policymakers about climate change impacts to help empower citizens and local and regional governments to make informed decisions and preparations to help protect homes, businesses, and communities against adverse impacts.” To that end, this book series seeks to promote climate science literacy and education among college and university students, young adults, educators, policymakers, and the general public. The chapters in this volume address the foundation and purpose of the ACS Climate Change Literacy and Education project, climate science, and international perspectives. Individual chapters are authored by students who have represented the ACS as UN-accredited “Observers” at the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conferences of Parties (COPs) from 2010 through 2015. Each of these student authors has presented outcomes of their COP project in climate change literacy symposia at ACS National Meetings. At the “Rio Earth Summit” in 1992, nations from around the globe agreed to The Framework Convention with the ultimate aim of preventing dangerous human interference in the climate system. The ACS received UN accreditation to participate in the UNFCCC as an NGO Observer for the first time at the 2007 COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia. Subsequently, the ACS Committee on Environmental Improvement (CEI) officially launched the Climate Change Literacy and Education project, which serves as the foundation of this book, by sponsoring two students to participate as accredited UN delegates at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico, held in December 2010. This project was designated as an official kickoff event for the then-upcoming 2011 International Year of Chemistry (IYC 2011). In the years since, the project has expanded in scope and outreach with student ambassadors representing the ACS at COP17 in Durban, South Africa (2011), COP18 in Doha, Qatar (2012), COP19 in Warsaw, Poland (2013), COP20 in Lima, Peru (2014), COP21 in Paris, France (2015), and COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco (2016). ACS Students on Climate Change remains the only ongoing International Year of Chemistry project within ACS. This Climate Science Literacy and Education book series offers insight from students who have engaged the global community at the epicenter of international climate change negotiations. The annual COPs are a vital resource that facilitates deeper understanding of the science of climate change within a broad context of sustainability, economic equity, social justice, and the complexities of developing multilateral policy. ix

The student authors have interacted directly with national leaders and international negotiators in the real-world United Nations. They have interviewed community leaders, business and NGO representatives, everyday citizens, and youth from around the globe. They have used the UN as an international platform—and social media as a tool—to engage their peers, young adults, and educators in the climate change discourse. The guiding principle of this ACS-sponsored climate literacy project is to enable students to communicate directly with their peers and educators, as opposed to a top-down approach for involving students in a dialogue about climate science. We wish to acknowledge and thank Tony Noce (ACS CEI Chair) for championing this project, Ray Garant (ACS Assistant Director for Public Policy) for his advice and tireless organization of functions and activities, Carl Maxwell (ACS Manager of Energy and Environment Policy) for UN accreditation logistics and arranging informative, off-the-record meetings with federal agencies and staffers on Capitol Hill, Joan Coyle (ACS Lead Communications Officer) for media outreach coaching, and Diane Husic (Dean of the School of Natural and Health Sciences at Moravian College) for serving as a faculty mentor for the ACS students during week one of the annual COP. We also offer special thanks to Laura Pence (former CEI Chair), under whose leadership this project was launched, and to Rachael Bishop (former Manager of ACS Public Policy Communications) for initiating media training sessions for the ACS COP students at ACS National Headquarters in Washington, DC. This project would not have been possible without the financial support and faculty mentoring by the numerous colleges and universities that have sponsored their students’ participation in this project, as well as the support of parents and family.

Keith E. Peterman, Professor of Chemistry York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania 17403, United States 717-815-1334 (office); 717-825-1716 (cell) [email protected] (e-mail)

Gregory P. Foy, Associate Professor of Chemistry York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania 17403, United States 717-815-1523 (office); 717-968-0870 (cell) [email protected] (e-mail)

Matthew R. Cordes, Principal Writer Writing Works, Ltd., Lehighton, Pennsylvania 18235, United States 570-556-8832 (cell) [email protected] (e-mail) x

Chapter 1

Climate Change Literacy and Education: History and Project Overview Keith E. Peterman* Department of Physical Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania, York, Pennsylvania 17403, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Climate change is the defining sustainability issue of our time. This chapter traces the early history of climate change to the present day where student ambassadors represent the American Chemical Society at the epicenter of international climate change negotiations. As early as 1827, Joseph Fourier proposed that gases in the atmosphere might be responsible for trapping energy from the sun, which is now described as the natural greenhouse effect. Svante Arrhenius hypothesized near the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could warm the planet, which we now call the enhanced greenhouse effect. The work of 20th Century scientists Roger Revelle, Dave Keeling, and others would lead to establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC First Assessment Report, completed in 1990, served as the basis for creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Each year, UNFCCC Parties gather for a Conference of Parties (COP) which serves as the convention’s “supreme body” with the “highest decision-making authority.” ACS student observers engage the global community at the annual COP to investigate and report on the science of climate change within a broad context of sustainability, economic equality, social justice, and the complexities of developing multilateral policy. The overarching purpose of the ACS student COP project and this book is to promote climate science literacy and education

© 2017 American Chemical Society

among college and university students, young adults, educators, policymakers, and the general public.

Climate Change Literacy and Education: History and Project Overview The inspiration for this book came on a cold December day in Copenhagen. As 2009 drew to a close, I found myself standing for nearly six hours in subfreezing temperatures, waiting to be admitted to the Bella Center, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was hosting its 15th Conference of Parties (COP15). By the time I arrived, Copenhagen had become an electric, exciting gathering of UN delegates, policy makers, NGO representatives, special interest groups, and media representatives. They came from all corners of the world, replete with hope and high expectations. More than 100,000 individuals had come to Denmark for COP15, and the city had even been dubbed “Hopenhagen” to underscore the fervent hope that negotiators from around the globe would finally reach an agreement to slow the rise of greenhouse gases (1). COP15 saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever outside the UN in New York, all of whom were poised to put their signatures on a defining, historic climate change treaty. A gaggle of U.S. legislators and emissaries preceded President Obama on the Hopenhagen stage. The President, meanwhile, arrived with significant domestic support: Senators Kerry (D-MA), Lieberman (I-CT), and Graham’s (R-SC), draft, non-partisan “Climate Framework,” and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) declaration that “greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people (2, 3).” The latter gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. More than 40,000 people held official UN accreditation to attend COP5, but the Bella Center could accommodate fewer than 15,000 people. Thanks to our press accreditation, I was one of the lucky ones to gain entrance, as was Matt Cordes, one of the co-editors for this book. Many of those who had made the trek to Copenhagen to participate in and observe the proceedings were literally left out in the cold. Unfortunately, COP15 did not deliver on its promise to usher in a formal agreement. The diplomatic haggling over targets (the emission-reduction goals for each nation), money (who and how much financial assistance should be provided to developing nations), and transparency (how emissions would be verified) was intense and intractable. What emerged instead was a widely varied list of promises under the “Copenhagen Accord”—a weak, non-binding agreement. What’s more, the UNFCCC parties did not formally adopt the accord. In the end, they could merely agree to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord (4). My experiences in Copenhagen—the failed “Hopenhagen”—gave me pause. I had seen youth from nations large and small, wealthy and poor, crying for a voice in the negotiations. As the aging policymakers sat down to broker the planet’s future, however, those youth were not present at the bargaining table. 2

The following March, at the 2010 Spring National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in San Francisco, the ACS Committee on Environmental Improvement (CEI) invited me to report on my COP15 experience. In the process, an idea took root with regard to engaging student representatives in the annual UN climate conferences.

Birth of the ACS Students on Climate Change Project “Sustainability” was the overarching program theme at the 2010 Spring ACS National Meeting. Climate change is the most significant global, environmental, economic, social-sustainability issue of our time. Following my meeting with CEI leadership and participation in a Sustainability Engagement Event (SEE) in San Francisco, I was appointed to chair a national SEE Action Team charged with “Incorporating Sustainability into the 2011 International Year of Chemistry (5).” Greg Foy, one of the co-editors for this book, joined me in leading this committee. With the ACS having gained UN NGO “Observer” status for the 2007 COP13 in Bali, Indonesia, our committee developed a proposal to begin sending student ambassadors to represent the ACS at the annual UNFCCC COPs. We presented our proposal to the full CEI committee at the 2010 Fall ACS National Meeting in Boston, where it was accepted, and CEI offered a seed grant to jump start the project. The ACS Students on Climate Change project was off and running (6). That winter, the first two ACS student members received UN accreditation to attend the 2010 COP16 in Cancun, Mexico (see Chapter 2). This served as an official kick-off event for the upcoming 2011 International Year of Chemistry (IYC 2011), with the students even publishing articles about their COP experiences and observations on the Editor’s Blog of Chemical and Engineering News (7). Since then, the project has grown in both scope and national outreach. The roots of this book, however, can be traced to the IYC 2011. In fact, ACS Students on Climate Change remains the only ongoing International Year of Chemistry project within ACS.

Early Greenhouse Hypothesis As early as 1827, French scientist Joseph Fourier proposed that gases in the atmosphere might be responsible for trapping energy from the sun (8). Fourier even established a distinction between “light heat” received on the earth from the sun, versus “dark heat” reflected back to the atmosphere. By way of analogy, he cited an experiment; when a thin sheet of glass is placed atop a black box, the temperature inside of the box increases. This would later be described as the natural greenhouse effect (9, 10). Unpolluted air is primarily composed of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and argon (0.9%). The remaining 0.1% contains carbon dioxide (0.04%), water vapor, and other trace gases. Put another way, this 0.1% contains the gases responsible for global warming. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon absorb neither visible nor infrared radiation, so they have no impact on the greenhouse effect. Visibly transparent carbon dioxide, 3

on the other hand, does absorb infrared radiation. So even though CO2 represents the merest fraction of our atmosphere, its importance to the climate change story cannot be overstated. Throughout virtually all of human history, CO2 concentration stood at approximately 0.028% (more often expressed as 280 “parts per million” or “ppm”). Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased, eventually surpassing the 0.040% (400 ppm) threshold in 2013 (11). At the end of the 19th century, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius hypothesized that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could warm the planet; something we now call the enhanced greenhouse effect (12). Arrhenius puzzled in particular over the factors that cause the ice ages. He spent an entire year calculating—latitude by latitude—the balance of solar radiation entering versus “dark heat” retained by the atmosphere. His calculations even took into account “feedback effects,” the fact that increasing concentration of CO2 drove the evaporation of water, which would increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This, in turn, would exert its own greenhouse effect. In the end, he concluded that doubling the concentration of CO2 would increase the Earth’s temperature by about 5o–6°C. Arrhenius published his work in 1896 and became the first scientist to predict that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and warm the Earth. He reasoned, though, that global warming would be good for the planet (13). Not until the later part of the 20th century would we identify the human contribution of CO2 into our atmosphere as a major factor in the enhanced greenhouse effect that was leading to global warming. Biographers say Arrhenius was a happy man, content with his work and family life. He taught himself to read at the age of three, and his broad academic interests encompassed mathematics and all of the physical sciences (14). He received the 1903 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his theory on electrolytic dissociation, not for his work on the possibility of global warming. He did not even mention atmospheric CO2 or its link to warming the Earth in his Nobel lecture. Nevertheless, Arrhenius’ Nobel lecture offers some insightful passages. In it, he states that “…we can never be certain that we have found the ultimate truth. Theories…can sometimes be attacked on philosophical grounds.” But, he counseled that we can continue to use a theory “until a better and more satisfactory theory appears” (15). Arrhenius was encouraging us to not discount theories based on our own philosophical, theological, or ideological biases. We must eschew biases in favor of conjectures that can be verified or falsified through scientific studies. Although the international scientific community now nearly unanimously accepts the theory that climate change is the result of increased anthropogenically produced gases in our atmosphere, Arrhenius’ 1896 hypothesis was denied by almost every expert through the first half of the twentieth century. Until the mid-20th century, most scientists dismissed his ideas of global warming. Many felt that nature would balance itself. One, however, did not. 4

The Keeling Curve Charles Keeling took a remarkable and compelling route on his way to becoming the world’s leading authority on the accumulation of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (16). Keeling began his undergraduate studies in 1945 as a chemistry major at the University of Illinois. His program of study required that he take a course in economics, but having grown up immersed in—and disillusioned by—his father’s ideas of economics and banking, the young Keeling rebelled against this requirement by dropping the chemistry major. He would ultimately graduate with a general liberal arts degree. As is frequently the case, social networking created opportunities when Keeling found himself facing the uncertainty of early adulthood. A family friend who remembered being impressed with Keeling even as a precocious child offered him a graduate fellowship at Northwestern University. Even though he lacked a degree in chemistry, he had taken enough courses to prepare him for graduate studies, and Keeling completed his Ph.D. in polymer chemistry in 1954. As fate would have it, the Ph.D. program required a minor in a “noncontiguous” field of study, and Keeling discovered a genuine interest in geology. Chemists—especially those with graduate degrees in polymers—were in high demand in the post-World War II era. Nevertheless, Keeling decided to forgo the promise of a big salary working for a chemical company in the east, opting instead for a post doctoral fellowship at California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena. Caltech had just started a new department in Geochemistry, and Keeling was its first post-doctoral fellow. Keeling called his time at Caltech in the mid 1950s “a period of opportunity.” When the time came to select a research topic, Keeling, an avid outdoorsman, decided to combine his love of nature with his newly developed interest in geochemistry. This would eventually lead him to develop a system for measuring CO2 in the air. Keeling was an ingenious, meticulous experimentalist who designed apparatuses to function in the “real environment.” Having built an instrument that would accurately and precisely measure atmospheric CO2, Keeling soon discovered that, “the highly variable literature values for CO2 in the free atmosphere were evidently not correct.” Reported values at the time ranged widely, from as few as 150 to as many as 450 ppm. This variability concerned Keeling, who soon developed a personal drive for precise measurements that would accurately represent atmospheric CO2 levels. First, Keeling decided to check the air around Pasadena. He was not surprised that these measured CO2 values varied widely due to the proximity of industry, automobiles, backyard burning (a common practice at the time), etc. In response, Keeling sought a location where he could sample more pristine air. He settled on the state park in the Big Sur costal region of central California, a full day’s drive from Pasadena and (he hoped) an ideal environment for these initial tests. At age 27, the prospect of taking air samples at Big Sur “didn’t seem objectionable, even if I had to get out of a sleeping bag several times in the night. I saw myself carving out a new career in geochemistry” (16). 5

Camping in the forest of Big Sur on a clear, nearly moonless night with starlight flooding down through the redwoods, Keeling opened the stopcock on an evacuated five-liter glass vessel, letting the cool, damp air rush into it (17). Thus began the collection of scientific data that would confirm Arrhenius’ hypothesis. Keeling reflects in his autobiography that he “did not anticipate that the procedures established in this first experiment would be the basis for much of the research that [he] would pursue over forty-odd years” (16). Keeling collected samples both night and day to ascertain a daily cycle of maximum and minimum CO2 concentrations in the forest air. To confirm these observations, he expanded his sampling to other pristine forests and rural settings, and in all cases he found the same results. In this way, Keeling discovered a diurnal pattern of CO2 highs and lows with a maximum concentration of 310 ppm in the afternoons. This regular daily pattern was the result of photosynthesis, respiration, and the atmospheric mixing cycle. Further, he realized that the constant result from place to place represented the ‘background’ atmospheric concentration of CO2 (18). He did not realize it at the time, but this astounding discovery would make Keeling famous in coming decades (19). In 1956, the U.S. Weather Bureau was planning to measure CO2 at remote locations around the globe as part of the International Geophysical Year, soon to be simply dubbed “IGY.” IGY was to be a comprehensive, 18-month effort to study global geophysical activities, beginning in July 1957. The emergence of new technologies and tools (including satellites) would enable IGY studies to not only span the globe from North Pole to South Pole, but to include activities in space as well. As part of IGY, Henry Wexler, then the Director of Meteorological Research for the U.S. Weather Bureau, wanted to sample atmospheric CO2 at a new meteorological observatory near the top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Wexler was keenly aware of Keeling’s work, and the young scientist successfully lobbied Wexler for the purchase of four infrared gas analyzers—an emerging technology at the time—to continuously monitor CO2 around the world, including atop Mauna Loa. Keeling’s work at Caltech also came to the attention of Roger Revelle, Director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Revelle was already concerned that humans were returning to the atmosphere a significant amount of terrestrially stored carbon. This carbon had been extracted by plants and stored in sediments during half a billion years of geologic history, yet the massive (and expanding) combustion of coal, petroleum, and natural gas was reversing that process at a vastly accelerated rate (20). Revelle observed that “Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future” (21). Revelle offered Keeling a position at Scripps, which Keeling accepted. Keeling got to work installing one of Wexler’s IGY-funded infrared gas analyzers atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean, Mauna Loa offered the promise of pristine atmospheric samples. While the air in Pasadena swirled with industrial and other pollutants, Mauna Loa was devoid of any such anthropogenic interference. 6

On the first day of measurements in March 1958, Keeling recorded an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 313 ppm. Over the course of his studies, Keeling observed that his measurements would increase to a maximum in May, then decline to a minimum in October, repeating the same seasonal cycle the next year. He noted that “We were witnessing for the first time nature’s withdrawing CO2 from the air for plant growth during summer and returning it each succeeding winter.” Planet Earth, it seemed, was breathing. Keeling also made another significant observation in 1959, when he realized the average CO2 concentration that year was slightly higher than the previous year. In 1960, the average concentration increased still further. Even with this limited data, Keeling published his findings, noting two profound conclusions: • •

Our planet is undergoing natural seasonal breathing; and The background atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing (22).

Data collection at the Mauna Loa site has continued into this, its seventh decade, and the Keeling Curve—the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 data in the world (see Figure 1 below)—has become emblematic of the global warming story (23). Indeed, it serves as the cornerstone of global warming science today (24).

Figure 1. Keeling Curve. (Reproduced from ref. (23). Copyright 2016 esrl.noaa.gov).

7

In 1969, Keeling spoke to the American Philosophical Society about the data from Mauna Loa. Addressing the first decade of his Curve, Keeling cautioned that if the rise in CO2 continued, it would be “…likely to inhibit the escape of heat radiating upward from the Earth’s surface and bring about a warmer climate—the so-called ‘greenhouse effect (17).’” In his presentation, Keeling was responding with hard scientific data to the global warming question originally presented by Arrhenius. The burning of fossil fuels was increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the consequences promised to impact the global climate. Years later, though, Keeling would reflect that “there was no sense of peril then, just a keen interest in gaining knowledge.”

Alarm Bells Ring The first Earth Day, held on April 22, 1970, launched the modern environmental movement. As the general public began to recognize that our biosphere was not an infinite sink immune from human impacts, citizens started pressuring policymakers to enact environmental laws that would protect our air, water, and other natural resources. As the 1970s progressed, there was growing concern that human emissions could impact the global climate. This was based not on any single piece of evidence, but on a growing body of cross-disciplinary documentation: experts in meteorology, geophysics, climatology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, oceanography, geography, hydrology, glaciology, and biology, were seeing critical alignment among their findings. There were still uncertainties, but the First World Climate Conference, held in Geneva in early 1979, expressed concern that “continued expansion of man’s activities on Earth may cause significant extended regional and even global changes of climate.” While Arrhenius had been unable to move beyond a hypothetical prediction of the possibility of global warming, by the latter half of the 20th century, Keeling’s findings, coupled with documented climate change impacts from other disciplines, began to elevate Arrhenius’1896 hypothesis to the level of distinct theoretical possibility. Mounting volumes of data showed a direct correlation between global temperatures and the levels of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Although there was still a level of uncertainty, a growing body of scientific evidence supported the theory of global warming. In 1981, James Hansen and a team of scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies published a seminal article in Science stating that increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. Their model projected “global warming…for the next century is of almost unprecedented magnitude” estimating a 2.5°C temperature increase. Later in the decade, Hansen’s testimony before congress helped raise awareness of global warming among policymakers and civil society. His 1988 testimony was considered pivotal in moving the climate change discourse from the closed circle of climate scientists to a full blown public debate. Unfortunately, “climate change”—also branded “global warming” or “climate variability”—became a polarizing political debate in subsequent years. 8

By the 1980s, scientists recognized the need for a comprehensive assessment body to separate fact from uncertainty. Global issues require a global organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born (25).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The World Meteorological Association (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988 to provide independent analysis of the existing consensus within the scientific community, and today scientists and policymakers around the globe recognize the IPCC as the most comprehensive, authoritative body for assessing the science of climate change. The IPCC is an apolitical, scientific entity comprised of thousands of scientists and experts from around the world, representing a number of relevant fields. Unlike government agencies, its role is not to make policy. Rather than conducting actual research, the IPCC exists to assess peer-reviewed, published scientific, and technical literature, and to make this information available to policymakers. The IPCC’s aim is to be objective, open, and transparent in its rigorous review of the scientific literature. Although the IPCC is policy-neutral, it is policy-relevant. In other words, once governments accept and approve its reports, policymakers are acknowledging the legitimacy of their scientific content. This makes IPCC reports highly relevant in crafting governmental policies. Since its inception in 1988, the IPCC has published five Assessment Reports (26). These state—with increasing scientific certainty—that climate change is occurring, and that it is largely due to human activity. The seminal First Assessment Report, published in 1990, demonstrated this “policy-neutral, policy-relevant” position. In it, the scientific community agreed that emissions from human activities were substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, adding that this could result in additional warming of the Earth’s surface. It would be another decade, though, before scientists concurred that they could be certain.

The Long Road from Rio to Paris When policymakers instituted the UNFCCC treaty at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, the IPCC First Assessment Report was a key foundational document. The UNFCCC exists to prevent “…dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (27).” The U.S. joined more than 150 nations in signing the convention, and the annual Conference of Parties (COP) serves as the convention’s “supreme body,” with the “highest decision-making authority (28).” Today, the UNFCCC has near-universal membership with 195 parties (194 countries and the EU) having ratified the convention. 9

The UNFCCC is a platform for political negotiation. It is wholly separate from the IPCC, which provides the science. The UNFCCC decides what policies to enact based on the known science. COP3, held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, was at the time the most prominent conference held. The UNFCCC treaty had set no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual nations, and it contained no enforcement provisions; it called for subsequent updates that would set mandatory limits, but it was not a legally binding document. More than 10,000 participants from 161 countries attended COP3 with the goal of finally establishing mandatory, legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations. The result was “The Kyoto Protocol,” which entered into force on February 16, 2005 and bound 37 industrialized countries and the European Union to reduce emissions by an average of five percent against 1990 levels (29). The United States symbolically signed the Kyoto Protocol, but we stand alone as the only industrialized nation that never officially ratified it. In spite of limited U.S. engagement, the international community pressed forward with action guided by the UNFCCC. The December 2007 COP13 in Bali—the first for which the ACS was accredited to participate—intended to give direction for the negotiating process that would follow the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The resulting Bali Roadmap led negotiators through the 2008 COP14 in Poznan, Poland, en route to COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark (30). COP15 held the potential to reshape global greenhouse gas emission targets (and the ensuing rise of global temperatures) for decades to come. As stated at the beginning of this chapter, COP15 failed to deliver on that potential. Subsequent conferences in Cancun, Mexico (COP16) and Durban, South Africa (COP17) achieved modest outcomes as set forth in the Cancun Agreements and similar documents (31). Here, parties agreed to create a legally binding global treaty by 2015, with an effective date of 2020. In a departure from previous agreements, China and India would be bound by this treaty. In reality, though, negotiators in the run up to COP21 in Paris did little more than kick the can down the road to the next climate conference. Poilcymakers drafted the historic Paris Agreement at COP21 in December 2015 (32). Here, at last, was a plan that offered hope for a world that has long awaited a global strategy to address climate change. Success in Paris can largely be credited to the visionary Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which allowed each country to negotiate its own commitments within the context of their own political realities (33). The U.S. Senate, for example, would almost certainly not ratify an international climate treaty due to the number of senators who either deny that climate change is occurring or doubt that humans are responsible. Nevertheless, our nation was able to commit to a 26%–28% reduction from 2005 greenhouse gas emission levels by 2025 through the Clean Air Act and the regulatory authority of the EPA. INDCs leading up to Paris were “Intended.” The Agreement required 55 countries representing over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions to sign on with their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in order for The 10

Agreement to enter into force (34). That threshold was passed on October 5, 2016. Thirty days later, the Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016. I attended my first COP in 2009 at COP15 in Copenhagen, and my co-editors and I were all present to witness the historic success of COP21 in Paris in December 2015. The contrast between the two events could not be more stark. In Copenhagen, the parade of dignitaries grew more and more star-studded each day as leaders arrived for the high-level closing sessions to personally forge an agreement and—hopefully—put their signatures on an historic document. As we have seen, the actual conclusion fell short of “historic (4).” COP21 in Paris, on the other hand, opened with the largest one-day gathering of world leaders ever, with negotiators subsequently instructed by their respective heads-of-state to “get the job done.” And they did. More than 100,000 people converged on Copenhagen, and thousands took part in demonstrations. In Paris, a city still reeling from the terrorist attacks that left 130 dead just weeks before, an official state of emergency all but prevented any civil disobedience. The noteworthy exception, of course, was a massive permitted (and peaceful) demonstration that unfurled a “Red Line of Climate Injustice,” symbolizing a red-line temperature increase that cannot be passed (35). As well, a broad coalition of NGOs unrolled multiple red lines decrying injustices caused by climate change. The accepted text of the Paris Agreement envisions holding our planetary fever at 1.5°C, although UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated at COP21 that the collective INDCs put forth by UNFCCC member parties are not enough to keep our world from warming beyond 2°C this century (36). Whatever the actual outcome, The Paris Agreement represents our first global step (albeit it a baby step) toward tackling the civilization-challenging threat of climate change. *** The overarching purpose of this book is to promote climate science literacy and education among college and university students, young adults, educators, policymakers, and the general public. The ACS Climate Change Public Policy Statement recommends that “The U.S. Government should promote climate science literacy and education for citizens and policymakers about climate change impacts to help empower citizens and local and regional governments to make informed decisions and preparations to help protect homes, businesses, and communities against adverse impacts” (37). Each of the chapters in this book is authored by an individual who has participated in one or more UN COPs since the Students on Climate Change project was launched in 2010 as a kickoff event for the IYC 2011. All have traveled to the ACS National Headquarters in Washington, DC to receive instruction on media outreach, and to Capitol Hill and governmental agencies for off-the-record informational meetings and technical advice. They have written articles and leveraged social media to engage their peers and others in the climate change discourse. In addition, all authors have presented informed papers in climate literacy symposia at recent ACS national meetings. Climate change is the defining sustainability issue of our time. Today’s youth are the first generation to feel the adverse impacts of climate change, and, in the 11

words of UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon, “the last generation that can put an end to climate change (38).” This book offers insight from students who have engaged the global community at the epicenter of international climate change negotiations. The following chapters present the science of climate change within a broad context of sustainability, economic equality, social justice, and the complexities of developing multilateral policy.

References 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

Peterman, K. E.; Cordes, M. R. Chemistry and Society Courses Can Address Global Issues. In Sustainability in the Chemistry Chemistry Curriculum; Middlecamp, C. H., Jorgensen, A. D., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series 1087; American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2011; pp 189−202. Kerry, J.; Lieberman, J. I.; Graham, L. O. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/ Framework_for_Climate_Action_and_Energy_Independence.pdf (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). EPA. Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/ admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/ 08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). UNFCCC. Copenhagen Accord. http://unfccc.int/meetings/ copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). ACS. Incorporating Sustainability into the 2011 International Year of Chemistry. https://communities.acs.org/groups/incorporating-sustainabilityinto-the-2011-international-year-of-chemistry-celebration/overview. Students on Climate Change. Home. http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/ (accessed Aug 11, 2016). C&E News. The Editor’s Blog. http://cenblog.org/the-editors-blog/2010/ 11/climate-change-through-the-eyes-of-undergraduate-chemistry-majors/ (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). Pierrehumbert, R. T. Warming the World: Greenhouse Effect; Fourier’s Concept of Planetary Energy Balance is Still Relevant Today. Nature 2004, 432, 677. Weart, S. R. The Discovery of Global Warming; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2003; pp 1−19. APS. Birth of Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier. https://www.aps.org/ publications/apsnews/201003/physicshistory.cfm (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Mauna Loa CO2 Monthly Mean Data; ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt (accessed Dec. 20, 2016) Rodhe, H.; Charlson, R.; Crawford, E. Svante Arrhenius and the Green house Effect. Ambio 1997, 26, 2–5. Arrhenius, S. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine 1896, 41, 237–276. 12

14. Svante Arrhenius Biography. Nobel Prize. [Online] http:// www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/arrheniusbio.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 15. Svante Arrhenius Nobel Lecture. Nobel Prize. [Online] December 11, 1903. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/ arrhenius-lecture.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 16. Keeling, C. D. Rewards and Penalties of Monitoring the Earth. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1998, 23, 25–82. 17. Broecker, W. S.; Kunzig, R. Carbon Dioxide and the Keeling Curve. In Fixing Climate; What Past Climate Changes Reveal about the Current Threat and How To Counter It; Hill and Wang: New York, 2008, pp 65−80. 18. The Early Keeling Curve. Scripps CO2 Program. [Online] http:// scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/early_keeling_curve (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 19. Heimann, M. Charles David Keeling 1928−2005. Nature 2005, 437, 331. 20. Morgan, J.; Morgan, N. Roger Revelle: A Profile. Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives. http://scilib.ucsd.edu/sio/biogr/ Morgan_roger_revelle.pdf (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 21. Ravelle, R.; Suess, H. E. Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atomosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase in Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades. Tellus 1957, 9, 18–27. 22. Keeling, C. D. The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere. Tellus 1960, 12, 200–203. 23. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 24. ACS. The Keeling Curve: Carbon Dioxide Measurements at Mauna Loa, National Historic Chemical Landmark. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/ en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/keeling-curve.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 26. IPCC. Assessment Reports. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1 (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 27. UNFCCC. Essential Background: The Convention. http://unfccc.int/ essential_background/convention/items/6036.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 28. UNFCCC. Fact Sheet: UNFCCC Terminology. https://unfccc.int/files/press/ backgrounders/application/pdf/unfccc_terminology.pdf (accessed Dec 20, 2016). 29. UNFCCC. Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 30. UNFCCC. Bali Road Map. http://unfccc.int/key_documents/bali_road_map/ items/6447.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 31. UNFCCC. Cancun Agreements. http://unfccc.int/key_steps/ cancun_agreements/items/6132.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 32. UNFCCC. Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/ 9485.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 13

33. UNFCCC. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). http:// unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 34. WRI. FAQs About How the Paris Agreement Enters into Force. http://www.wri.org/faqs-about-how-paris-agreement-enters-force (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 35. Peterman, K. E. Red Line for Climate Justice Unfurled in Paris. Huffington Post [Online] Dec. 14, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keithpeterman/red-line-for-climate-just_b_8793536.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 36. Climate Action Tracker. http://climateactiontracker.org/ (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 37. ACS. Climate Change Public Policy Statement 2017-2020. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/ globalclimatechange.html (accessed Dec. 20, 2016). 38. UN. Secretary General Statements and Messages. [Online] May 28, 2015. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm16800.doc.htm (accessed Dec. 20, 2016).

14

Chapter 2

Establishing a Pathway to Student Engagement in the Climate Change Discussion Anthony J. Tomaine* Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, 560 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Beginning with the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) in 2010, the ACS has helped select students receive non-governmental organization (NGO) status from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in order to attend the annual Conference of Parties (COP) and provide student outreach on climate change issues. The 2011 International Year of Chemistry (IYC 2011) played an especially important role in the initiation of the COP student-to-student engagement efforts, sparking a climate change discussion among students that continues to this day. This chapter will discuss the project’s foundation and describe the effort that enabled its launch, including the ways participants attend conference sessions, interview and network with other NGO personnel, and interact with government officials. The chapter will conclude with an overview of the project’s success and current outlook.

Introduction Life-defining moments; we never expect them, but we remember them forever. Whether they define our career, personal life, or simply resemble a checkpoint in our past, we look back and know that moment is where the right, or maybe wrong, decision was made. With regards to science and policy, the subject of climate change is seemingly at this defining moment for our world. What we as a society choose to do in this generation will presage the lives of generations to come. The Students on Climate Change (SOCC) (1) project is represented by a © 2017 American Chemical Society

group of individuals devoted to climate change literacy and education; our project began as a result of the International Year of Chemistry (IYC 2011) (2).

The International Year of Chemistry In 2008, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution declaring that 2011 be the International Year of Chemistry (3). Its purpose was to create a worldwide celebration of chemistry and its contributions to the global community, using the overarching theme of “Chemistry—Our Life, Our Future.” IYC 2011 had many goals, including increasing the public’s appreciation of chemistry, encouraging interest in chemistry among the youth, and generating enthusiasm for the future, among others. As a subset to these goals, there were actions to emphasize chemistry as a creative science for sustainability, yielding four major, global themes: 1) water in the environment, 2) alternative energy, 3) materials, and 4) health, with each theme to be celebrated quarterly throughout IYC 2011 (4). The American Chemical Society (ACS) declared the United Nations conference of December, 2010 (the 16th Conference of the parties, or COP16 under the UNFCCC) to be a kick-off event for IYC 2011. This major conference is specifically for policy related to climate change and is influenced by the science behind it. Unfortunately, we are scientifically limited in our ability to precisely predict how both human and ecological systems will react to changes in the climate. Nevertheless, it is known throughout the scientific community that past and current assessments of the Earth’s climate, along with potential future climate assessments, indicate that climate change is present, largely due to human behaviors, and is a serious problem if nothing is done to combat this change (4).

ACS Policy on Climate Change To confront the changing climate and attempt to improve its current state, the ACS has created a climate-specific policy statement (4). As the largest scientific society in the world, it strives to advance science, advocate for chemistry, and educate the public through outreach programs, among other initiatives. Additionally, with more than 20 public policy statements, ACS communicates with government officials to promote public policies that address national and global matters (5). In regards to climate change, the ACS policy statement contains four pillars as its foundation: 1) to enhance the understanding of the Earth’s dynamic system at many levels through further development of integrative and interdisciplinary scientific research, 2) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are a result of human activities, 3) adapt to the new climate we are currently facing (including adaptations to the changes in water supplies, agricultural productivity, severe weather patterns, etc.) and 4) develop a national strategy to promote climate change literacy and education. It is strongly believed that climate change is a serious risk to the Earth and all its species, and must be addressed to prevent the possibility of potentially catastrophic events. 16

In regards to these four pillars of the ACS policy statement, the SOCC group is focused on climate change literacy and education. Our mission, in cooperation with the ACS, is to bridge a connection between the accepted science of climate change, and the social science, risk management and economic issues of our time. The sustainability education we present demonstrates the properties of climate-literate individuals. These characteristics include the understanding of principles essential to the Earth’s climate system, the knowledge to assess scientifically credible information about climate, effective communication about climate and climate change, and the ability to make informed/responsible decisions with regard to actions that may affect climate. As previously stated, IYC 2011 served as a platform for climate change education and hosted a kick-off event by sending two students to COP16 as student-ambassadors of ACS. The COP meetings are supported by the UNFCCC and began in May of 1992 (6). The first COP meeting (COP1) was held in Berlin and established a process to strengthen commitments from developed countries to the UNFCCC. This led to the Kyoto Protocol being adopted at COP3 in 1997 (7). The significance of this document is remarkable, as it is the world’s first commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it did not enter into force until 2005, after detailed rules for the protocol were adopted in 2001 at COP7. For the protocol to enter into force, no fewer than 55 parties to the UNFCCC—who must also account for at least 55% of carbon dioxide emissions—were required to ratify, accept, approve, or accession the protocol (8). After the Kyoto Protocol, the next major development in the international climate change discussion came at COP13 in Bali. As a result of this meeting, the Bali Road Map was developed (9). This outlined a new pathway for the negotiation process, using the five pillars of 1) shared vision, 2) mitigation, 3) adaptation, 4) technology and 5) financing as the foundation for future negotiations. At this moment, international climate policy began to move forward at a determined pace. Subsequent to the Bali Road map was COP14 in Poland. Here, policy that aims to aid developing countries financially with adaptation projects and programs was developed (10). This was followed by the Copenhagen Accord at COP15 where policy relations seemly came to a standstill, leaving many discussions for COP16 in Cancun (2010).

The Birth of SOCC The December 2010 COP16 was the beginning for SOCC. The initiative for the SOCC climate literacy project began in early 2010 when Drs. Greg Foy and Keith Peterman, chemistry professors at York College of Pennsylvania, were recruited to Chair the IYC 2011 national ACS Action Team 8: Incorporating Sustainability into the International Year of Chemistry; the ACS student climate literacy project was conceived by this committee. Foy and Peterman pitched the project idea to the ACS Committee on Environmental Improvement (CEI) in August of 2010 at the ACS National Meeting in Boston. After gaining approval for the student project, the professors returned home and mobilized two seniors 17

from YCP to help them plant the SOCC seed in the then upcoming International Year of Chemistry. At this point, my personal experiences gained a “once in a lifetime” chapter that I will never forget. At the start of the Fall 2010 semester, I was called into Dr. Foy’s office. I can honestly say that I was not a student who always did things by the book, but I had no idea why I was being called into his office, as I knew I had done nothing wrong. Upon walking to Dr. Foy’s office, I became increasingly more nervous with every step, anticipating something unexpected and unable to slow my mind, which was racing with thoughts of how the conversation would proceed. However, I would not have to wait very long to understand my nervous thoughts were for nothing. Our impromptu meeting quickly gave me a 180-degree turn of emotions, as I received an invitation to embark on the journey to COP16 and participate in climate change education among my peers. I was elated to hear that I was going to be a part of this project, along with my friend and colleague Leah Block, but the scientist in me quickly took over as I began to see the challenges that would come with this responsibility. From the beginning, it was our hope (among Leah, myself and our professors) that we create a long-term project by laying the foundation quickly and effectively. The challenge was immense, as it was September 2010 and the conference was in December of the same year; we had to move quickly. Between Leah and myself, our background education in climate change policy was minimal, our funding existed only through the ACS startup money, and we needed to obtain credentials for access to the conference. Since our knowledge of climate change history and policy was lacking, we began meeting with our professors to have an open discussion about the important milestones leading up to COP16. Beginning with the Keeling curve and learning the history up through COP15, Leah and I needed to grasp as much as we could in the little time that remained before COP16. Succeeding in due time, our meetings began to take on the dual purpose of increasing our education and planning our next steps in becoming attendees at COP16. Obtaining the necessary financial support for our journey was constantly addressed throughout the process. Generously, CEI provided the startup funds, which allowed us to show other sources that our fundraising campaign was underway. The YCP Physical Sciences Department and the YCP Student Chemistry Society also provided support for our pilot project. However, our efforts still fell short, which led us to asking the YCP Student Senate for backing. After two attempts, Leah and I were finally able to secure a majority of the funding needed for our trip; it was a relief and yet daunting, as reality began to set in.

Gaining UN Accreditation A majority of our efforts now shifted priority towards obtaining accreditation for access to the conference. COP16 would have high-level government officials and representatives present, which made obtaining access to this conference more difficult than many other scientific meetings we attended in the past. By acquiring accreditation, we would be allowed to pass the security checkpoint and access 18

certain areas of the conference but still be excluded from areas where negotiations were taking place. One of our daily tasks at COP16 would be to write a blog post about our everyday endeavors. At the time, Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum offered us blog space on his Editor-in-Chief blog (11). With this idea in hand, we applied for press accreditation, using a letter from the Editor-in-Chief himself. Unfortunately, we were rejected, mainly due to the lack of previous press-related publications from Leah and myself. Dejected but not short of ideas, we knew there was another option. The ACS had applied for and received non-governmental organization (NGO) status from the UNFCCC for COP13 in Bali. With this NGO accreditation, the ACS could now send a small group of individuals to COP16 as NGO Observers. Leah and I each had our names submitted to the UNFCCC as official ACS NGO Observers with the help of Ray Garant, ACS Assistant Director for Public Policy, and Carl Maxwell, ACS Office of Public Affairs, Director of Energy and Environment Policy. This UN accreditation opened the door and allowed us to gain access to the conference. We finally had our credentials!

Preparations Toward Becoming an ACS Student Ambassador Between September and November of 2010, we made monthly trips to Washington, D.C. (ACS headquarters), to learn not only how to submit our blog entries but, more importantly, what to blog about. As young students heavily involved in a startup project, there was the requirement and emphasis that we represent the ACS, YCP and ourselves well on the national and international level. Daunted, yet up to the stimulating challenge, Leah and I would be there to bridge the gap between policy, science, and students (who were our target audience). It was our privilege to assess, understand, and report our conference findings, staying unbiased and informative, which would allow for an open discussion about climate change. We would be the first two ACS NGO Student Ambassadors to attend a COP event.

COP16: We Have Arrived With our training complete, our funding established, and our access to the conference approved, we flew to Cancun, Mexico for the second week of COP16. Arriving with little difficulty, we immediately knew that we were in the right place for the conference, because it was advertised at every location of the Cancun airport. Traveling to the hotel, our feelings began to intensify, excited for the journey ahead, but they were also put in check very quickly. The reason for Cancun as the location for COP16, from its previously planned location of Mexico City, was due to an abundance of protests and general unrest. With this, it seemed that the Mexican military was not taking any chances, as they were apparently at every corner on our path to the hotel. After arriving at our resort, that evening we set out to retrieve our credentials from the conference site. Passing heavily armed vehicles and personnel en route 19

to the conference center, it was a different feeling than I had ever experienced before. As mixed emotions spread throughout my thoughts, we arrived and obtained our NGO badges, now ready to take the challenges associated with ACS Student Ambassador to a new level. During the first week of the conference, COP16 President Patricia Espinosa was elected, and third-party meetings [the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)] occurred, where negotiations were to be completed and reported to ensure progress was being made on establishing policy. The second week, when high-level meetings commenced, began with anticipation, in hopes that further policy progress would take place. Attendance at the conference included state parties (194 total), observer organizations, intergovernmental observers, UN specialized agencies and related organizations, along with NGOs and press. With the conference agenda related strictly to climate change, the goal of COP16 was to adopt and implement decisions necessary to carry out the mandates of the Kyoto Protocol (12). Unique to COP16, sustainability and mitigation were obvious major focus areas, and it was a mission of the Mexican government to provide services that minimized the environmental impact (13). To include a few examples, as we traveled daily from our hotel to the conference center, biodiesel-powered buses were our mode of transportation. A 1.5 Megawatt wind generator was installed to supply energy to the city of Cancun, and a major recycling program was implemented at this conference, eliminating the disposal of many materials.

The Daily Grind As with any conference, there was a daily program. This paper handout (or as we preferred, the online PDF download) was available everyday as the official UNFCCC guide to official meetings, side events and press briefings, and a summary of the previous day’s negotiations. These programs were open to all attendees of the conference and were something we heavily relied on to accomplish our daily tasks. Every day, we were able to attend small meetings and press conferences, communicate with other NGO groups, and interview many different individuals, along with attending plenary sessions. The small meetings might be policy-related or scientific in nature. Additionally, there were general presentations (non-party-associated) and also party-associated presentations where we could get a glimpse of specifics to various countries. Most interestingly, we were able to attend a session at the United States’ meeting room, where there were presentations from the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Defense, and the Council for Environmentally Responsible Economies (14). After observing what other countries were achieving to combat climate change, it was refreshing to witness the United States also making attempts at combating this world problem. Press meetings were high-level meetings that we were also able to attend at the conference. One thing to note, whether it was a finance or policy event, it 20

was intimidating being in the same room (sometimes just 20 rows away) from the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon or the President of Mexico (at the time) Felipe Calderon, or in Leah’s experience, having a personal conversation with Christianna Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (15). During the day’s-end press briefings, President Calderon and COP16 President Patricia Espinosa were a constant, united force. Their mission was to ensure progress was made, and the tone they set for the conference was consistent, asking for small victories each day. As President Calderon once said at the end of his speech, “We need to get the first 10 yards, before we are able to reach our goal” (16). One of the more adventurous aspects of being student ambassadors was interacting with other NGO groups and people; there was an entire section of the conference designated for NGOs to have booth displays (17). Walking around and having a dialogue with other NGOs, from students to professionals, was very inspiring, as everyone was united against the same cause. One of the common questions we asked to these groups was “As students who recognize climate change as a problem, what should we do to spread the message?” A variety of answers always surfaced, but their message was still the same: unite and educate. After attending one of the high-level finance meetings, we thought it would be a great idea to interview a member of the Advisory Group on Climate Financing. After Ban Ki Moon, a member of the advisory group, had left the room, we tried to get an interview with Meles Zenawi (1955-2012), the then Prime Minister of Ethiopia. Unable to get his attention at the room’s exit, Leah and I jockeyed past other reporters in an attempt to hear his opinion about what students can do to combat climate change. Finally, after fighting our way through the crowd and getting as close as possible without raising concern with his bodyguards, we got our chance to speak with him. Graciously, he answered our question with seriousness, stating that the world’s youth will play a large role in climate change policy and that new technologies will aid us in preventing a cataclysmic disaster. After listening intently to this prominent world leader while simultaneously attempting to contain my excitement, a different perspective began to materialize with intense weight; the future may be closer than we expect.

A Beacon of Hope Nevertheless, the most memorable experiences were at plenary sessions, especially the final one. These sessions typically involved many party delegates, press, and observers; hundreds of people in one room listening to leaders of the conference give speeches about what’s to come or what has been done. In the final session, Leah and I were lucky enough to be present at the most anticipated plenary session of the conference. After security closed the doors to the plenary hall because it had reached capacity, anticipation began to rise. With the excitement mounting, we were ready for COP 16 President Espinosa to emerge, but some delegates had—unknowingly to us—been denied access. Understandably unhappy with the decision, they began to intensely bang on the doors until they were allowed access, frightening half the people present inside, as we were clueless as to the happenings outside the ballroom doors. Finally, 21

they were granted access by President Espinosa, and minutes later the session began. As she walked out on the stage, I remember the goosebumps rising on my neck and finally to the rest of my body. However, it was not because I was in the presence of high-level individuals (that feeling was something I was now used to) but because every single person in that room was on their feet, applauding and cheering. COP16 was a success. Never will I forget what President Espinosa had done to create the Cancun Agreements with these delegates; she deserved the ovation that she received. As student ambassadors, our continued mission was not only to assess, learn, and understand our experiences, but to also share the information with our colleagues and students across the world. As we began, the most effective means of communication towards our target audience were not obvious to us. Our main outreach was through our C&E News blog space, and this did generate online discussions. We were also able to use Facebook and additionally host Skype sessions with our classmates at YCP. Once we returned, we were able to create a documentary film, which shared some of our interviews and also displayed what we learned, as students, from the conference (17). Although we did not have access to a lot of the social network applications that are present today, we were able to communicate and create an open discussion about climate change at our institution and beyond. As the first student ambassadors, our goal was achieved, but in reality, it was just an initial step—one of many. The project seed that we planted has now thrived and grown into an organization that we only hoped would happen. The ongoing Students on Climate Change project is comprised of students and professionals, dedicated to raising the level of climate change literacy in the United States. The mission stays the same: to create an open climate change discussion among a wide-ranging audience, focusing on post-secondary education students, while all individuals involved with this project strive to make a difference in their everyday lives (1). From two students attending YCP, SOCC has now encompassed 36 different students from five different countries over the past five COP events (18, 19). As seen in other chapters, student members of the SOCC project discuss specific interpretations of the effects from climate change. The current effects reach a broad set of individuals and groups, but the outcome, if nothing is done, will be the same: a potentially cataclysmic and unpredictable future.

References 1. 2. 3.

Students on Climate Change. http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/ (accessed Nov. 19, 2016). United Nations. International Year of Chemistry, 2011. http://www.un.org/ en/events/chemistry2011/ (accessed Nov. 19, 2016). International Year of Chemistry 2011: Activities Report of the American Chemical Society. Technical Report, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 2012; pp 1−26. 22

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

19.

American Chemical Society. Global Climate Change. https:/ /www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/ globalclimatechange.html#P57_16189 (accessed Sept. 4, 2016) American Chemical Society. ACS Positions on Policy Issues. https:// www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies.html (accessed Oct. 16, 2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC-20 Years of Effort and Achievement. http://unfccc.int/timeline/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed Sept. 4, 2016) United Nations. UNTC. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml#accession (accessed Nov. 19, 2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bali Road Map. http://unfccc.int/key_documents/bali_road_map/items/6447.php (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Poznań Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer. http://unfccc.int/press/ news_room/newsletter/in_focus/items/4760.php (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Chemical and Engineering News. The Editor’s Blog. http://cenblog.org/theeditors-blog/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). COP16|CMP 6. What Is COP16/CMP6. http://cc2010.mx/en/about/what-iscop16cmp6/index.html (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). COP16|CMP 6. COP16/CMP6 Sustainability. http://cc2010.mx/en/about/ cop16cmp6-sustainability/index.html (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Chemical and Engineering News. The Editor’s Blog. http://cenblog.org/theeditors-blog/2010/12/leading-by-example/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Chemical and Engineering News. The Editor’s Blog. http://cenblog.org/theeditors-blog/2010/12/women-leaders-and-climate-change/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). Chemical and Engineering News. The Editor’s Blog. http://cenblog.org/theeditors-blog/2010/12/hopes-of-accomplishment/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). YouTube. COP16 in Cancun, Mexico- A Documentary Film. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrXHQIzyAsU (accessed Sept. 4, 2016) American Chemical Society. U.S. Chemistry Students Interpret the U.N. Climate Talks. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/acsonthehill/uschemistry-students-on-un-climate-talks.html (accessed Sept. 4, 2016). York Blog. Global Hot Topic. http://www.yorkblog.com/hot/2016/07/25/ student-ambassadors-to-represent-american-chemical-society-at-cop22-unclimate-conference-in-marrakech-morocco/ (accessed Sept. 4, 2016).

23

Chapter 3

Climate Science Education – Hope for Our Future Gregory P. Foy*,1 and R. Leigh Hill Foy2 1York

College of Pennsylvania, 441 Country Club Rd., York, Pennsylvania 17403, United States 2York Suburban High School, 1800 Hollywood Dr., York, Pennsylvania 17403, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Climate change is arguably the most significant scientific issue facing the next generation. In order for the world to make appropriate choices for the health of the planet, there needs to be a climate science-literate worldwide population. In this chapter, we examine the state of climate science education around the world, with particular emphasis on the United States. We identify the difficulty in teaching climate science and the social and political challenges that arise from the topic itself. Ultimately, we present real solutions to this education dilemma, and provide a number of resources that climate science educators can readily implement.

Introduction Throughout this book, you will hear from multiple authors offering different perspectives concerning climate change, but the one common refrain will be a focus on education. In this chapter we will investigate the state of climate change education in our country. We will start this discussion by looking at attitudes towards climate change in our country in comparison to international attitudes, then investigate what is being taught in the U.S. along with teacher attitudes, move to impediments hindering climate change education, and finally look at how we can overcome these hurdles and begin to produce a generation that is climate science-literate.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Science Education in the United States Compared to the Rest of the World Science education in the U.S. has its challenges and critics. Recent research shows it has improved but continues to lag behind many of the top developed nations. If you ask American scientists how well the U.S. is doing in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education, their criticism is stinging—only 16% of American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists surveyed rank the U.S. K-12 science education as above average or the best in the world (1). In fact, 46% of scientists rank K-12 STEM education as below average. In this same Pew poll, the majority of the public agrees with scientists that U.S. science education is subpar. Could some argue that this perceived educational failing is a major factor in the effort to raise the public’s scientific literacy? It may be easy to point blame at the educational system for the public’s limited knowledge about scientific issues, but as we will see in this chapter, there are other powerful forces at play here influencing the public’s views on science. According to the 2016 Program for International Student Assessment, which tested 15-year-olds around the world in a number of different educational areas, the average science literacy score in the U.S. was 497 points, compared to the average of 501 points for students tested in other countries (2). The Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) for 2011 showed that the average science score of a U.S. 8th grader (525) was slightly higher than the average for the international student (500) (3). Many have criticized as unfair the international comparison of the U.S. education system (which attempts to achieve educational literacy for all students) to some other country’s educational systems (which focus only on high-achieving students). To this end, the American Institute for Research released a new comparison of the different states in the U.S. to different nations, an acknowledgment of the significant impact socioeconomics factors have on education (4). In this report, AIR researchers summarized that, in fact, 8th graders in most of the U.S. states performed better in science and math in comparison to most nations. But even our best states in science and math education are still behind some of the best international educational programs. “If you think of states and nations as in a race to prepare the future generation of workers, scholars and citizens to be competent and competitive in a technologically complex world, then the states are in the middle of the pack,” said Dr. Gary Phillips, a chief scientist at AIR, former commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, and author of the report. “The bad news is that even our best performing states are running far behind the highest performing countries.” Phillips goes on to say “The report shows the United States needs to substantially increase the scientific and mathematical competency of the general adult population so citizens can better understand and address many of the world’s most pressing problems.” While a mediocre rating in science and math affects our country’s future, it can be argued that a lack of learning in the area of climate science will have an impact on our entire world’s future as our standing as a world superpower necessitates our leadership to deal with this global challenge. 26

Public United States Attitudes about Climate Change vs International Attitudes There are a number of studies that indicate public attitudes towards climate change in the United States are far more negative and at odds with the scientific evidence than international attitudes and understanding. In a Pew Research Center study from November 2015, the authors found a global median of 54% of those surveyed agreed that “Climate change is a very serious problem”and this was contrasted with only 45% of those surveyed in the United States who agree with this statement. Another interesting split found in the study was that a 51% global median recognized “Climate change is harming people now,” whereas in the United States only 41% recognize the current harm climate change is causing. Finally, only 30% of those polled in the U.S. were “ Very concerned that climate change will harm me personally,” and globally that number rises to 40% (5). We must acknowledge that attitudes are not equivalent to education, but we know that attitudes have an extreme influence on education. We can further contrast both the international and the U.S. public attitudes with scientific attitudes. In one of the most comprehensive studies of the peer reviewed literature to date, Cook et. al. find that only 0.7% of 11,944 peer reviewed articles examined during a 21-year period (1991-2012) reject the consensus that humans are the main contributors to recent global warming (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) (6). There are many more interesting findings from this study, including the recognition that the largest percentage of abstracts, 66.4%, do not take a position on AGW. The authors took notice of this and addressed it in their discussion section. They pointed to a previous study by Oreskes in 2007 where she describes how scientists proceed after a consensus has been established “...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees” (7). In other words, the scientific community doing the research accepts anthropogenic climate change and thus it may not even be stated any more in the abstracts.Many of you who are reading this are practicing scientists, and if you were writing about a research problem that somehow related to the atom, you would not refer to the scientific consensus of modern atomic theory. This is not to say that the consensus cannot be questioned; it must, and it continuously is, but the majority of scientists move forward once a consensus is reached and investigate the unanswered. According to a recent AAAS publication, “Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not by just a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field” (8).

27

Worldwide Climate Science Education Given the above disparity between public and scientific attitudes, we can now turn our attention to what is happening in the classroom. Because of the wide-ranging impacts of climate change, the topic would lend itself to the crosscurricular educational practices that teachers are encouraged to employ to help make what students are learning in the classroom relevant to their lives. But many teachers do not employ cross-curricular teaching strategies, because they do not feel confident using these strategies (9). In an echo of similar attitudes that researchers found here with U.S. teachers not feeling confident in teaching about the wide-ranging science of climate change (as we will discuss below), a summary of educational practices in the UK reported that teachers do not always feel confident in teaching about topics in a cross-curricular way, because their training and educational background limit them to teaching confidently in only their content areas (9). In a New York Times article entitled “Setbacks Aside, Climate Change Is Finding Its Way Into the World’s Classrooms” the author recognizes the political and financial challenges associated with climate change education but also highlights countries that are making great strides (10). One such country is Ireland, where there is a broad theme of “education for sustainable development,” and climate change is a strong piece of this theme. Even with this forward-looking approach, an overall national strategy is still under development. There are other countries, such as India, which “require” environmental education, but it is a struggle to teach basic science skills, much less the complexities of climate science. A number of island nations participate in a UNESCO effort called Sandwatch, where students are actively measuring the width of beaches and monitoring other parameters to gain an understanding of the impacts of climate change (11). In the United States, the new national Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are not adopted by all states, and many public schools do not attempt to include its recommendations concerning climate science. (We will talk more in depth about the NGSS below.) In summary, the NYT article makes the argument that there is a lack of coherent educational objectives for international climate science education but more research is needed in this area.

Climate Science Education in the United States There are very few studies that provide any global view of what is being taught concerning climate change, but there is a recent significant study produced by the National Center for Science Education titled “Mixed Messages: How Climate Change is Taught in America’s Public Schools,” which can be used extensively to examine how climate science is being taught in U.S. classrooms and to try to understand how teacher attitudes influence the delivery of this information (12). There are several significant and telling findings in this report, and not all the news is bad. The bottom line with climate science education is that most U.S. public school students are getting exposure to climate science. The disturbing news is that students are receiving mixed messages, and teachers do not feel well 28

prepared to teach climate science. So it is well worth the effort to examine this report more fully to understand the current state of climate science education and to hopefully influence the future direction. A few of the positive key findings are: •

•

•

•

Climate change is being taught in the public school system, with almost 75% of public school science teachers self reporting that they are devoting classroom time to the topic of climate change; Almost ALL public school students—90% of public middle schools and 98% of public high schools—teachers report will receive some exposure to recent global warming (RGW); Teachers who cover the topic of RGW are covering the essential topics including the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle, and some consequences of climate change; and Many teachers are linking climate science to action by discussing positive steps that industry, government, or individuals can take to alleviate RGW.

Unfortunately, students are also being exposed to “mixed messages” and “equal time for opposing viewpoints” concerning climate change: •

• •

30% of teachers report that they are emphasizing that scientists agree on human activity as the primary cause of RGW (a positive since multiple studies report over 97% of climate scientists support this), while other teachers teach their students that “many scientists” see natural causes as the primary cause of RGW (a big negative when the reality is that fewer than 3% of climate scientists hold this position and less than 1% of recently published scientific papers on climate change hold an opposing position as cited earlier in this chapter); More than 25% of teachers give equal time to the position that human activity is not the primary cause of RGW; and. Given these last two points, it is not difficult to believe that most teachers are unaware of the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic cause of climate change or are unable to accept the scientific consensus due to conflicts with their own personal viewpoints.

In an effort to show “both sides” of this emotionally charged issue, many teachers end up “conveying to students that there is legitimate scientific debate instead of deep consensus,” according to a recent study summarized in the journal Science. Indeed, as we are learning more about the social science of the cultural polarization of climate change, teachers, too, are falling into the pattern of their personal beliefs coming into conflict with the best available science that is needed to promote the common understanding of this global scientific challenge (13). This study referenced above also found that teachers felt less “pressured” about teaching climate science than about teaching other controversial science subjects such as evolution (13). However, as we have seen above, teachers themselves are human, and their personal values on this topic affect their ability 29

to teach the science. Teachers may have confusion themselves about what science is, yet they need to reiterate that science is a system in which scientific evidence either supports or does not support a hypothesis. Religion is a system that employs faith or belief in something that is beyond facts. The two are separate entities (14). We, as educators, should not be using the word “believe”, as in making statements that anyone “believes” or “doesn’t believe” in climate change. Rather, we should be asking if the data for climate change supports the body of scientific evidence that humans are changing the climate of the planet. However, a major problem arises when the scientific data conflicts with a person’s beliefs and values. “When science conflicts with a person’s core beliefs, it usually loses,” says Marcia McNutt, editor of the journal Science (15).

Why Is Climate Change Such a Politically Charged Topic? To understand this question, we only need to look back in our history at how long it takes scientific evidence to become accepted by the public. The building of the mountain of scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes serious health problems began to accumulate in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950’s. The Reports of the Surgeon General from the U.S. Libraries of Medicine recounts that after the 1964 report on smoking and health came out, it took quite a while for public attitudes to catch up to the scientific realities (16). A Gallup poll in 1958 found that only 44% of Americans “believed” that smoking caused cancer, and it took 10 years for the same Gallup poll to reveal that 78% of Americans had come to accept the science (17). Even so, the addictive qualities of nicotine took longer to come to light, and it was not until the 1970s that advertising for tobacco products was banned in the U.S. As it turns out, social science has revealed that there are barriers to the acceptance of the science of climate change, and this helps us understand this human tendency. Dan Kahan’s article in Nature “Why we are poles apart on climate change” blames a “polluted science-communication environment” and personal allegiances that are more valuable than a preponderance of valid scientific data. Kahan writes “People whose beliefs are at odds with those of the people with whom they share their basic cultural commitments risk being labelled as weird and obnoxious in the eyes of those on whom they depend for social and financial support.” In other words, in this age of abundant resources, people filter information. This filter allows them to align with like-minded individuals in their groups who share common values and beliefs. These powerful filters keep valuable scientific information out of certain political, social, family, or religious groups. Kahan blames inflammatory words or “toxic partisan meanings” that are used to communicate about climate change, and this further polarizes the members of our society. He states that “people acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others who share their values and whom they therefore trust and understand.” Usually this strategy works just fine, but if all people follow this way of learning about science, then “Culturally polarized democracies are less likely to adopt policies that reflect the best available scientific evidence on matters—such as climate change—that profoundly affect their common interests” (18). 30

Indeed, the cover of the March 2015 National Geographic magazine states there is a “War on Science: Climate Change does not exist; Evolution never happened; The Moon landing was faked; Vaccinations can lead to autism; and Genetically modified food is evil.” An article in the magazine titled “The Age of Disbelief” states, “Skepticism about science is on the rise, and polarization is the order of the day. What’s causing reasonable people to doubt reason (15)?” The author reveals that even though there is a preponderance of evidence against each of these statements, certain segments of the population ignore the science and hold their own opinions. If a teacher showed students scientific evidence from a renowned scientist who is an expert in the field or a revered organization like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the students may refute the scientific data “depending on whether (that scientist’s) view matches the dominant view of their cultural group” (18). In fact this very situation happened in my classroom as I was writing this chapter. While teaching about the science of climate change in my high school chemistry course, I told the students that I was showing them data from NASA, a trusted scientific organization. One student spoke up and said “I don’t trust NASA—they faked the moon landing!” to which I calmly replied, “Then I don’t think the scientific information that I am trying to teach you is going to make it past your filter (Figure 1) (19).”

Figure 1. Filters that lead to a group ignoring the scientific evidence (19). 31

Other Challenges for Educators Teaching about Climate Science Teachers don’t know very much about climate science themselves, and there is a need for workshops and teacher education on this topic. Political science researcher Eric Plutzer and his colleagues list several factors that may help explain why U.S. science teachers are not prepared content-wise, including the fact that when they were trained in colleges and universities, climate change curriculum was probably not taught (13). Plutzer’s research states that fewer than half of the teachers surveyed in the study reported any formal training in climate change science in their academic career. This study also found that two-thirds of teachers would take advantage of continuing education in the area of climate science. Clearly one pressing need to help U.S. science teachers is offering meaningful workshops that provide climate science education for teachers and back up the education with resources that they can easily plug directly into their curriculum. There are many online climate change resources from NASA, NOAA, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and other agencies for teachers to use in their classrooms (see a short list of resources at the end of this chapter), but it can quickly be overwhelming when teachers lack deeply established science content knowledge regarding climate change. Teacher time and resources are also limiting factors in trying to teach about climate science. In this country, as in many others, teachers have to be concerned with high-stakes standardized testing. The vast majority of states require these tests, and therefore the responsibility falls to teachers to prepare students to be successful on these assessments. In fact, many teachers’ evaluations are tied to how their students perform on these standardized tests (20). According to a recent article in the Washington Post, a typical public school student in the U.S. will be required to take 112 standardized tests during his/her school years (21). Most high school science teachers are responsible for some sort of standardized test in their field of science (a complete list is found in the States Summative Assessment – 2015-16) (22). Although some state tests may have questions about climate change, even that creates controversy in some communities surrounding this issue, as evidenced in the article about a local petition to a school board in Colorado to remove anthropogenic climate change questions on Colorado’s assessments (23). And just what kinds of science courses do U.S. high school students take? According to the Education Commision of the States, many U.S. high schools only require three years of science, while some only require two (24). In a position paper, The National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) states that Earth Science or Geoscience is often taught in middle school, and if it is taught in high school, it may not be credited as a “lab science,” which is seen as less rigorous by college/university admissions and therefore less desirable to take (25). The NAGT goes on to warn that “Virtually all of the issues facing human society surrounding sustainability have roots in the Earth sciences.” Furthermore, the NAGT points out that fewer than 25% of U.S. high school students take a course in Earth science, compared to 91-94% taking a high school course in biology. Because an understanding of Earth systems is essential to the sustainable use of resources (like water), preparing a population of students for 32

geoscience careers in the 21st century—and educating the population on these topics—is why an Earth science education in high schools should be required, according to the NAGT. However, this recommendation faces huge obstacles to implementation in all states due to many significant constraints—public school budgets being one of the most formidable. A high school Earth science course is where many might assume that a climate change curriculum would be taught, yet we cannot at this point in the American public education system depend on this assumption. Therefore, U.S. science teachers must treat climate change education as a cross-curricular topic and teach it in all courses as it pertains to specific disciplines. This is a tall order for science teachers with so much material to cover. During a sabbatical project in 2011, we set out to have conversations with university and high school science teachers in Australia and New Zealand to see what their attitudes were concerning climate change education (26). Our thinking was that these countries would have interesting perspectives compared to those in our country, and yet we have language and many societal practices in common. What we found in these interviews was that while almost all educators at both the high school and collegiate level classified climate change as the “fundamental environmental challenge of our time,” very few actually focused on it in their courses. Most Aussie and Kiwi educators that we interviewed stated that they thought students would get the climate change content in other, more specific content courses, like environmental science courses. The problem, of course, is that the majority of students do not take these specialized science courses. We face a similar problem in this country. Science curriculum traditionally tends to be very narrowly defined, and climate change education is a broad, overarching theme touching on aspects of all of the sciences, including social sciences. As we have seen, many high school science teachers in this country report that they do not feel confident about teaching about climate change, as they have not had specific courses on the topic in college (27). So, in light of all of these challenges, it is our argument that climate science should be taught in context in a cross-curricular approach; i.e., it should be taught in all science courses at all levels as it fits in with the context of those courses. Because no single course can make our future population climate literate, we contend here that this strategy of teaching students about climate science should be employed in our schools across this country.

What Should United States Teachers Be Teaching about Climate Change? So what should teachers in the U.S. be teaching about climate change? Let’s start with a little background about national science standards, which are guidelines developed by professional educators and scientists. Fifteen years ago the gold standard of what should be taught in science classrooms around the country was the National Science Education Standards, developed by the National Research Council (NRC) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (28, 29). 33

Scientific literacy is needed for informed citizens in the 21st century, and science is an ever-changing field. As stated above, several recent studies show U.S. science students lagging behind other developed nations in STEM subjects. So in 2010, in order to meet these needs, the National Academy of Sciences directed the National Research Council (its functional advisory arm) to develop the first step in a set of new and updated science education standards. The result was A Framework for K-12 Science Education, published in 2012 (30). The developers of this framework used the current research on science and scientific learning, but the group needed to further develop the standards of scientific learning. The result of this endeavor was the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), developed by the NRC, AAAS, the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) and Achieve, Inc, and released to the public in April 2013 (31). Interestingly, this educational initiative was led by states, not the federal government. A group of 21 lead states and 41 writers developed the NGSS based on the framework that was previously developed. According to the latest adoption map, 16 states have currently adopted the NGSS, and many more are in the process (32). Many people who are not familiar with public education standards confuse the Common Core standards with the NGSS. The Common Core standards are only for the English language, the arts, and mathematics. The NGSS includes disciplinary core ideas, crossing cutting concepts, and scientific and engineering practices for K-12 science education. There are many direct references to climate change in the NGSS and also many places where climate change is used as an example of a topic appropriate to its core ideas. The NGSS recognized that this emphasis on climate science would place a heavy expectation on classroom teachers, and so the National Climate Assessment (NCA) was developed to give teachers resources and support (33). The National Climate Assessment was developed through the support of an impressive collaboration of the following federal agencies: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Agency for International Development; United States Department of Agriculture; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); United States Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); United States Department of Defense; United States Department of Energy; National Institutes of Health (NIH); United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of State; United States Department of Transportation; United States Geological Survey; United States Department of the Interior; United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Science Foundation (NSF); and Smithsonian Institution. 34

We will give specific examples of core ideas in the NGSS and how they could fit into the teaching of climate science in context below. At the end of this chapter, we also provide resources for the teaching of climate science in the classroom.

How Can We Bridge the Gap Between What United States Teachers Are Currently Teaching and What They Should Be Teaching? Professional Development Opportunities and Teacher Training Teachers need more training in climate change science in professional development opportunities like workshops. “The trick is these [conferees] ‘teachers’ require funding to be able to attend and teachers need their principals’ support to get professional education,” says the NCSE’s Berbeco (27). Simply stated, science teachers need more training to understand climate science itself. We have developed our “Top Ten Climate Change Data Sets that a Science Literate Citizen Should Understand,” but it will take significant teacher training for educators to feel confident in teaching this material to their students (34). Teachers need to be careful to not add to the “polluted science-communication environment that drives people apart” by using polarizing language when teaching about climate change (18). We also need to understand that just showing more scientific data to our students alone will not get all of them to accept the data supporting climate science. Teachers need to recognize that some students in the classroom will have personal values that might lead them to view that scientific data with a different filter, and they may disregard the science if accepting it threatens to dislodge them from their cultural group. At the same time, teachers should not attempt to present the “other side” of climate science in trying to “be fair” as this is not supported by the 97% of the scientific community and should therefore not be presented in a science classroom, as it only leads to confusion about climate science in students’ minds (13). Teachers need training in order to understand the information filters that students bring with them to the classroom. Educators need to learn how to accept and understand these student filters while at the same time using the best teaching practices in our classrooms so we can begin to erode the gap between what scientists know about climate change and what students perceive. With fewer than a quarter of high school students taking any Earth systems courses, and with this content area being foundational for 21st century jobs in sustaining Earth’s resources in a carbon-constrained world, all high school science teachers should teach about climate change in their respective classrooms. This philosophy of teaching climate science in context is a cross-curricular approach that is interdisciplinary and attempts to use climate science as a vehicle to connect what is learned in the classroom to a real-life problem. What should science teachers be teaching about climate change? As stated above, for the first time climate science has been designated as a core concept in a national science curricula, the (NGSS) (31). The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement about climate science in 2013 emphasizes that it is foundational to science education (35). Their eloquent statement sums it up nicely: “Efforts 35

to properly teach climate science are regularly challenged by those seeking to frame it as somehow different from other scientific subjects, often with claims that it is either ‘uncertain’ or ‘controversial.’ They advocate the need for a special approach to its teaching, such as added effort to balance perspectives. With this statement, the AMS seeks to confirm the solid scientific foundation on which climate change science rests, and to emphasize that teaching approaches different from other sciences are not warranted. Uncertainty is a natural component of all scientific endeavor. The existence of uncertainty does not undermine the scientific validity of climate change science; to the contrary, it provides a sound example for broader instruction of the scientific method (35).” Teachers need to elevate climate literacy in our course goals and teach climate change in context in our science courses. The top national science organizations back up this idea with their position statements on climate change education. Here is a snapshot of their positions on this topic: National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) “Scientists are in broad agreement about the occurrence, causes, and consequences of climate change. Climate science is a framework that integrates all earth systems. It’s the ultimate practical science that allows us to apply science concepts like physics and life science. It essentially integrates all of the sciences in quantitative and societally relevant experience (36).” Dr. David L. Evans, NSTA Executive Director National Academies of Science (NAS) “Ultimately, the ability of the elementary and secondary school systems to provide comprehensive climate literacy education will depend on the systematic availability of quality curriculum resources, impact of curriculum mandates such as state standards and assessment, and, importantly, the preparation of teachers (37).” National Research Council (NRC) “The reality of global climate change lends increasing urgency to the need for effective education on earth system science, as well as on the human and behavioral dimensions of climate change, from broad societal action to smart energy choices at the household level (38).” National Science Foundation (NSF) “Climate science is complex and interdisciplinary, and therefore not an easy subject to teach,” says Dave Campbell, a program director at NSF. “It takes time for modern science to make it into textbooks, so teachers rely on websites and news clips in order to introduce these concepts into the classroom.” Another NSF program director, Jill Karsten, states, "The topic of climate change is not currently well-represented in national and state science education standards.” NSF launched the Climate Change Educational Partnership program (CCEP) in 2010 to develop materials and resources for educator (39).”

36

American Chemical Society (ACS) The ACS recommends that the United States should “Develop a national strategy to support climate change education and communication that both involves students, technical professionals, public servants and the general public, as well as being integrated with state and local initiatives. A national climate education act could serve as a catalyzing agent to reinvigorate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education across the nation. Such a strategy should include an integrated approach to sustainability education that connects science with social science, risk management, and economic issues. Such a policy must also include integrated support for informal science education (40).” American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) “Organizations that have studied climate-change education efforts—including AAAS, the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and others—have found that simply providing scientific data is not spurring the necessary public and political responses. To connect with audiences about the science of climate change and its wide-ranging human impacts, new approaches that draw from across the sciences—and the humanities—are necessary (41).” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “NOAA Education’s goal of fostering an environmentally-literate public is an important component of achieving NOAA’s mission. NOAA defines an environmentally-literate person as someone who has a fundamental understanding of the systems of the natural world, the relationships and interactions between the living and nonliving environment, and has the ability to understand and utilize scientific evidence to make informed decisions regarding environmental issues. An educated public is needed to serve as stewards of the natural environment, take appropriate action in the case of severe weather, and participate in the national discussion about complex issues such as climate change (42) .” National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) “Environmental topics are particularly relevant to students’ everyday lives and should be presented within the context of scientific inquiry—to present science as the self-correcting, dynamic process that it is. Instruction should include critical review and analysis of information sources as well as relevant field and laboratory investigations. Specific topics should include: basic ecology, ecosystem loss and degradation, renewable and non-renewable resource use, human population dynamics, global climate change and the earth’s biodiversity (43).” The Geological Society of America “Public education is a critical element of a proactive response to the challenges presented by global climate change (44).”

37

National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) “NAGT further recognizes that climate, climate systems and climate change are best taught in an interdisciplinary manner, integrating the many relevant sciences into a holistic curriculum approach; that climate-change topics provide exceptional opportunities for students to learn how geoscientists study past, present, and future climate systems, including the essential role of computer models in the assessment of global climate change scenarios; and that a current and comprehensive level of understanding of the science and teaching of climate change is essential to effective education (45).”

So, What Would Teaching Climate Science in Context Look Like? Let’s look at some examples from the NGSS and see what teaching climate science in context might look like. In each of the following classroom scenarios, we start with a reference to an NGSS statement and then provide an activity that addresses the statement.

In the Biology Classroom NGSS HS-LS2-7 Design, evaluate, and refine a solution for reducing the impacts of human activities on the environment and biodiversity.

Activity As the climate changes, the effect is not only on temperature but precipitation patterns, along with other natural patterns that will change the living conditions for many species. Many plant and animal species will be stressed by these changes. Applying the basic principles of natural selection enables students to see that some species will have an advantage over others and that natural selection will determine which species will survive and which will not. A prime example is seen in the arctic, where arctic circle lichen is being replaced by shrubs, affecting caribou, wolves, etc. In contrast to this, there are certain agricultural crops in the U.S. like soybeans, which scientists predict might improve with increased CO2 levels if precipitation patterns are adequate for growth. Many of these changes can be seen on the EPA website report on agriculture (46). A biology teacher could challenge his/her students to analyze the NASA graph and make a chart of potential “winners” and “losers” in the struggle for existence as climate change affects ecosystems worldwide (Figure 2) (47). Ask students to research why so many of the more sensitive areas are in the northern latitudes. Student teams could choose an ecosystem and report predicted effects from climate change (48).

38

Figure 2. Predicted percentage of ecological landscape being driven toward changes in plant species as a result of projected human induced climate change by 2100; Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech. Reproduced from Reference (47).

This is a wonderful application to real life and connects to the NGSS Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) LS2.C “Ecosystems Dynamics, Functioning, and Resilience – Anthropogenic changes (induced by human activity) in the environment – including habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, overexploitation, and climate change – can disrupt an ecosystem and threaten the survival of some species (31).” In the Chemistry Classroom NGSS HS-PS1-6 Refine the design of a chemical system by specifying a change in conditions that would produce increased amounts of products at equilibrium.

Activity Instead of presenting an artificial chemical equilibrium problem set or a “cookbook” lab to high school chemistry students, why not challenge them to look at the ocean’s role as an absorber of CO2 and the subsequent acidification of the oceans (Figure 3), as a result of that shift of equilibrium since atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased (49)? Chemistry teachers could present the equilibrium equation depicted below in the NASA figure (Figure 4) (49). The 39

teacher could then challenge the students to design an experiment to test the effects of increasing water temperature (effect of climate change) or a decrease in salinity (effects on oceans with continued polar ice cap melting) on pH changes in water systems. Students could also design a procedure of introducing CO2 into an aqueous solution—like capturing car exhaust using a funnel and a balloon (see my class doing this in a two-minute video on YouTube goo.gl/ogtSWy) and testing subsequent pH changes as the contents of the car exhaust balloon bubbles through a test solution. This will help students recognize the effect of carbon dioxide on the pH in aqueous solutions . The students could then be challenged to develop a system to test the shift in equilibrium by manipulating variables in their system (49).

Figure 3. Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere influencing CO2 concentrations in seawater resulting in decreased pH over time. Reproduced from Reference (49).

This is a perfect real-life scenario that depicts the Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) PS1.B “In many situations, a dynamic and condition-dependent balance between a reaction and the reverse reaction determines the numbers of all types of molecules present (31).”

40

Figure 4. Ocean acidification chemical equation. Reproduced from Reference (49).

In the Physics Classroom NGSS HS-PS3-1 Create a computational model to calculate the change in the energy of one component in a system when the change in energy of the other component(s) and energy flows in and out of the system are known.

Activity Every physics or physical science teacher discusses conservation of energy and energy transfer. Why not use the radiative forcings data shown below from the IPCC 2013 Assessment Report to show the energy “ins” and the energy “outs” of the Earth system and how the math shows that more Watts/m2 are staying in our Earth’s atmosphere (Figure 5) (50)? Radiative forcing is a way of expressing the change in energy balance in our atmosphere as different gases trap the heat released after the earth absorbs solar radiation. Physical science teachers could easily devise some dimensional analysis problems from this data and focus on the different measurements of energy in a system. This fits in perfectly with the Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI) Definition of Energy: “Energy is a quantitative property of a system that depends on the motion and interactions of matter and radiation within that system (31).” (NGSS)

41

Figure 5. The Earth’s energy balance. Reproduced from Reference (50). In the Earth Science Classroom NGSS HS-ESS3-1 Construct an explanation on evidence for how the availability of natural resources, occurrence of natural hazards, and changes in climate have influenced human activity.

Activity Out of the 19 Performance Expectations of the NGSS for Earth and Space science, eight are foundationally based on climate science and sustainability of Earth’s resources, so there is a rich mining of resources for teachers in this field to elevate climate literacy for students in their classes. One example would be the data from NOAA and NASA concerning sea level rise due to climate change (Figure 6) (51). According to NASA, 11 out of the 15 most populated cities in the world are located on the coast or on estuaries, and approximately 53% of the population of the U.S. lives near the coast. NASA also has an excellent animation using satellite data depicting sea level rise from November 1997 to September 2015 (52). An earth science teacher could ask students to look at world maps and identify vulnerable population areas at or near sea level that would be impacted by sea level rise, and then compare the student predictions to the IPCC or NASA maps that show areas at risk for sea level rise. Earth science teachers could also look at recent hurricane data and storm surge information, and have students predict how 42

the sea level rise would impact storm surge of future hurricanes. Earth science teachers focusing on water resources could also have students look at well water contamination with increased sea level rise and the impact of those people living at or near sea level.

Figure 6. Sea Level Rise since 1880. Reproduced from Reference (51).

Other examples of possible climate change units of study in an Earth science classroom include paleoclimate data of natural climate change scenarios of the history of the earth and what we have learned from them. Ice extent data from land and sea could also be included in a comparison between ancient climate conditions and those of today. The National Snow and Ice Data Center has some excellent resources, including monthly images and trends (53). The ocean “conveyor belt” currents and the potential temperature and salinity changes in the oceans due to climate change and the affect on global weather pattern producers is another topic of potential study connecting the study of earth science to climate change. Basic information for ocean circulation (thermohaline circulation) is available on the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research’s (UCAR) Center for Science Education website (54).

43

Conclusion In summary, what do U.S. science teachers need to elevate climate science literacy in our classrooms? Here is a list of “needs” to work toward Climate Science Literacy: •

• •

• •

Need to provide current teachers with professional development opportunities to elevate the teachers’ own climate science literacy. Because of budget constraints, many schools cannot afford teacher workshops; therefore, other funding sources, grants, and help from organizations are required. Need to include climate science courses in teacher training and preservice teacher education in our colleges and universities. Need to educate teachers about the social information filters and pressures we all have, which affect our perception of scientific data on climate change and other areas of science. Need to develop climate science materials for K-12 students and train teachers to use them. Need to stop thinking that students will get climate science education in a special course. Instead, need to teach climate science in context as a cross-curricular topic that students will learn about in all of their science and social science courses in grade-appropriate classroom activities.

Online Resources for Climate Change: Materials for the Classroom AAAS Publication “What We Know” is an excellent resource for both the classroom and anyone wishing to see a concise report on the science behind climate change. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/ National Climate Assessment: a team of more than 300 experts summarized the impacts of climate change on the U.S. now and in the future. It is reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and is a rich resource of information. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ NOAA has a deeply resourced website on climate change with links to many other scientific websites. http://www.noaa.gov/climate NASA’s website has beautiful photographs and rich scientific evidence from satellite research and other sources. http://climate.nasa.gov/ NASA also has many resources specifically for teachers. https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/index.html 44

The National Center for Science Education is devoted to educators teaching about science. Its climate change resources are focused on helping teachers in this content area. https://ncse.com/climate The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report on the Physical Basis for Climate Change is particularly rich with resources for teaching about climate change in the classroom. There is also an excellent video that sums up the scientific consensus. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

References U.S. Students Improving – Slowly – in Math and Science, but Still Lagging Internationally. http://powerofdiscovery.org/us-studentsimproving-%E2%80%93-slowly-%E2%80%93-math-and-science-stilllagging-internationally (accessed Oct. 2016). 2. Student performance (PISA 2012). http://gpseducation.oecd.org/ CountryProfile?primaryCountry=USA&treshold=0&topic=PI (accessed Oct. 2016). 3. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results11_science11.asp(accessed Oct. 2016). 4. American Institutes for Research. http://leg.mt.gov/content/committees/ interim/2007_2008/edu_local_gov/sub_com/K12/Test_US-Foreign.pdf (accessed Oct. 2016). 5. Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/global-concern-aboutclimate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/ (accessed Sep. 2016). 6. Cook, J; Nuccitelli, D; Green, SA; Richardson, M; Winkler, B; Painting, R; Way, R; Jacobs, P; Skuce, A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 1–6. 7. Oreskes, N. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong on Climate Change In What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren; DiMento, J. F. C., Doughman, P. Eds.; MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007; pp 65−99. 8. What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change. http:/ /whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/ (accessed Sep. 2016). 9. Cross Curriculular Teaching and Learning 2: A Short Research Review. http://www.jsavage.org.uk/research/cross-curricular-teaching-and-learning2-a-short-research-review/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 10. Setbacks Aside, Climate Change Is Finding Its Way into the World’s Classrooms. http://nyti.ms/1gLeQ3m (accessed Sep. 2016). 11. Sandwatch. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/ sids/sandwatch/ (accessed Sep. 2016). 1.

45

12. Mixed Messages: How Climate Change Is Taught in America’s Public Schools. https://ncse.com/files/MixedMessages.pdf (accessed Sep. 2016). 13. Plutzer, E.; McCaffrey, M.; Hannah, A. L.; Rosenau, J; Berbeco, M.; Reid, A. H. Climate Confusion among U.S. Teachers. Science 2016, 351, 664. 14. Haught, J. F. Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation; Paulist Press: New York, 1995; pp 9−26. 15. Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt?. http:// ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text (accessed 2016). 16. The Reports of the Surgeon General. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ Narrative/NN/p-nid/60 (accessed Oct. 2016). 17. Gallup Poll, 1958. 18. Kahan, D. Why We are Poles Apart on Climate Change. Nature 2012, 488, 255. 19. Graphic created by R. Leigh and Gregory P. Foy; technical assistance from Morgon Lesko, Chemistry Major, York College of Pennsylvania. 20. Grading Teachers by the Test. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/ business/economy/grading-teachers-by-the-test.html?_r=0 (accessed Oct. 2016). 21. Standardized Testing Is Overwhelming the Nation’s Public Schools. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-says-standardizedtesting-is-overwhelming-nations-public-schools/2015/10/24/8a22092c79ae-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html (accessed Sep. 2016). 22. State Summative Assessments: 2015-16 School Year. http://www.ecs.org/eccontent/uploads/12141.pdf (accessed Sep. 2016). 23. Activist Wants Climate Change Out of Standardized Test. The Daily Sentinel. http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/activist_wants_climate_change (accessed Sep. 2016). 24. Standard High School Graduation Requirements (50-state). http:// ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbprofall?Rep=HS01 (accessed Sep. 2016). 25. Position Statement - High School Earth Science Instruction. http://nagt.org/ nagt/policy/high-school.html (accessed Sep. 2016). 26. Foy, G. P. Sabbattical project begun in 2011. 27. Climate Change Confusion in the Classroom. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-confusion-inthe-classroom/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 28. National Science Education Standards. https://www.nap.edu/read/4962/ chapter/1 (accessed Oct. 2016). 29. Benchmarks for Science Literacy – Project 2061. http://www.aaas.org/ program/project2061/about (accessed Oct. 2016). 30. A Framework for K-12 Science Education − Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, National Research Council; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012; pp 16−19. 31. Next Generation Science Standards − For States, By States. Vol 1: The Standards − Arranged by Disciplinary Core Ideas and by Topics; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2013; pp xiv–xxi. 46

32. Next Generation Science Standards Adoption Map. http:// academicbenchmarks.com/next-generation-science-standards-adoptionmap/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 33. NOAA Climate.gov Science and Information for a Climate-Smart Nation. https://www.climate.gov/teaching/national-climate-assessment-and-nextgeneration-science-standards (accessed Oct. 2016). 34. Foy, G.; Foy, R. L. Climate Science in Context; Providing Teachers with Tools To Elevate Climate Science Literacy; ACS Fall Meeting 2016, Philadelphia, PA, August 21, 2016; Session CHED: High School Program, Paper CHED 26. 35. AMS Policy Statement; Climate Science Is Core to Science Education. https:/ /www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statementsof-the-ams-in-force/climate-science-is-core-to-science-education/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 36. NSTA Position Statement on Next Generation Science Standards. http://www.nsta.org/climate/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 37. Climate Change Education in the Formal K-12 Setting: Lessons Learned from Environmental Education. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/ groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072565.pdf (accessed 2016). 38. Climate Change Education: Goals, Audiences, and Strategies: A Workshop Summary 2011. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13224/climate-changeeducation-goals-audiences-and-strategies-a-workshop-summary (accessed Oct. 2016). 39. NSF News on Announcing Climate Change Education Partnership and Quote on Climate Science Education. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/ pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503465 (accessed Oct. 2016). 40. ACS Position Statement on Global Climate Change. https:// www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/ globalclimatechange.html (accessed Oct. 2016). 41. AAAS Pacific Division Explores Climate-Change Communication. https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-pacific-division-explores-climate-changecommunication (accessed Oct. 2016). 42. NOAA’s Goals in Education 1. Environmental Literacy. http://www.education.noaa.gov/pdfs/ hm_FY14%20Accomplishments%20Report_Final_web.pdf (accessed Oct. 2016). 43. NABT Teaching about Environmental Issues. http://www.nabt.org/websites/ institution/index.php?p=96 (accessed Oct. 2016). 44. Climate Change – The Geological Society of America. https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspx (accessed Oct. 2016). 45. NAGT Position on Climate Change. http://nagt.org/nagt/ search_nagt.html?search_text=climate+change&search=Go (accessed Oct. 2016). 46. EPA Report on “Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply”. https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-andfood-supply (accessed Oct. 2016). 47

47. 21st Century Ecological Sensitivity – Changes in Plant Species. https:/ /www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate20111214i.html (accessed 2016). 48. Bergengren, J. C.; Waliser, D. E.; Yung, Y. L. Ecological Sensitivity: A Biospheric View of Climate Change. Climatic Change 2011, 107, 433–457, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0065-1. 49. Ocean Acidification. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/ 2014/04/15/sampling-the-global-ocean-and-a-note-on-ocean-acidification/ (accessed Oct. 2016). 50. Figure SPM.5 from IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P. M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K. and New York, 2013. 51. Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level. https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level (accessed Dec. 2016). 52. Sea Level Rise Animation from NASA. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/resources/83/ rising-seas-by-decade (accessed Oct. 2016). 53. NSIDC Ice Extent Data. https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ (accessed Oct 2016). 54. Thermohaline Circulation. http://scied.ucar.edu/ocean-move-thermohalinecirculation (accessed Oct. 2016).

48

Chapter 4

Science of the Anthropocene Nicole M. DeLuca Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The age of the Anthropocene is upon us, with humans affecting the earth’s climate and environment more than ever before. As a student at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Doha, Qatar and Warsaw, Poland, I experienced firsthand how important it is to educate my peers and the public on the science of climate change. This chapter aims to provide a basic understanding of some of the key concepts of climate science, including how greenhouse gases warm the earth’s surface, how natural processes affect climate, and how the observed changes in temperature today differ from times of change in the past. Evidence that humans are responsible for today’s changes in climate includes a shift in atmospheric carbon isotopes and results from climate models that simulate various climate scenarios. Our modern human ancestors did not experience the climate conditions that the earth is currently careening towards. In order to preserve the habitability of the earth for our species’ survival, immediate actions must be taken to reduce the damaging effects of human activities. Educating students and the public about climate science is a vital step in calling for policies that can make these necessary actions a reality.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Many countries throughout the world are actively engaged in reducing their contribution to climate change. However, my journey to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a student representative of the American Chemical Society, and subsequently as a mentor to new student representatives, brought me to two distant countries where I would never have expected to go to for such a purpose. I attended the UNFCCC 18th and 19th Conference of Parties (COP) in Doha, Qatar and Warsaw, Poland, respectively. Both of these host countries were under scrutiny for their relationships to fossil fuels, which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Qatar is an oil-rich country with the largest per capita CO2 emissions of any country in the world (1). Meanwhile, Poland depends on coal for power production, with about 85% of its electricity being generated at coal-powered plants as of 2013 (2). Along with many of the other conference delegates and attendees, I was skeptical as to why these countries would host a conference that aims to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep warming of the earth below 2°C. The attitude from my fellow youth attendees was particularly agitated when they learned that Warsaw would be hosting the World Coal Association’s International Coal and Climate Summit, which aims to continue using fossil fuels as an energy source, during the same week as the COP. In these host cities, I did not get the impression that the local people were very concerned about climate change. As I spoke to some of these local people, many times on public transportation to and from the conference, I realized that they viewed the international conference and our presence in their city as a nuisance instead of as an opportunity to improve their country’s relationship to the environment. In hindsight, I think this bizarre and unexpected feeling of disdain from the local people that I experienced may have been a learned attitude from their leaders’ resistance to make changes needed to fight climate change. As a student at the COP, I learned what an important role the world’s youth has in combating climate change. We do not yet have the legislative authority that is needed to make global changes in the way that people interact with the environment, but we do have the responsibility and power to educate the public, our elders, and most importantly our peers. By leading the effort to educate others, we can make a meaningful difference in countries like Qatar and Poland and change the ways that people view their impacts on the earth. Throughout this chapter, I hope to give you a basic understanding of several key aspects of the scientific background of a time now being referred to as the “Anthropocene” and how we know that humans are responsible. In August 2016, the world experienced its 16th consecutive hottest month on record (3). The need for climate change awareness, education, and action is dire!

What Is the Anthropocene? A working group of scientists at the International Geological Congress recently voted that the world has entered a new geologic time period, departing from the Holocene epoch that began almost 12,000 years ago at the end of the 50

last ice age (4). This new geologic unit was named the “Anthropocene” in the early 2000s by Nobel Prize-winning chemist, Paul Crutzen (5). Crutzen proposed that the Anthropocene epoch is distinct from the Holocene epoch because of the escalating human influence on the global environment and repercussions on the climate system (5). Numerous geologic units throughout Earth’s 4.6 billion-year existence have been recognized by the scientific community, and each unit describes a period of time when rocks and sediments that were forming reflect a unique phase in the Earth’s history. Some geologic units are divided by changes in atmospheric composition or types of organisms living on the Earth, while other geologic units are separated by catastrophic events such as asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, and mass extinctions. Has humankind become the next “asteroid” that divides geologic time? Although a preliminary decision has been made that the Anthropocene indeed is a new geologic epoch to describe modern anthropogenic changes to the climate and environment, it will not be an official geologic unit until the Executive Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences ratifies its official inclusion in the Geologic Time Scale. In order to do this, a distinct point in time in the rock record that marks the beginning of the Anthropocene epoch and the end of the Holocene epoch must be identified and agreed upon (4). One potential marker for the beginning of the Anthropocene goes back to thousands of years ago when ancient human civilizations began to engage in agriculture, which changed the physical and chemical composition of the landscape. Another potential beginning of the new epoch could be the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, when carbon dioxide began to be pumped into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. The prevalent proposal from the working group of scientists that recently voted on the existence of the Anthropocene is that the marker should be the start of the Atomic Age in the 1950s, when large quantities of radioactive elements were introduced into the environment from nuclear bomb testing and human impacts on the climate accelerated (4). Even if a marker is never agreed upon and the Anthropocene does not become an official unit of the Geologic Time Scale, the concept of this new age has ignited awareness in the media and the public about the extent of what humans are doing to their only home in the solar system. How could our day-to-day actions as a single species affect the earth’s climate in such a substantial way that could bring about the dawning of a new age? The answer lies within the science behind greenhouse gases and their effects on the earth’s climate system.

The Role of Greenhouse Gases Earth’s atmospheric gases are largely transparent to the sun’s incoming light at visible wavelengths. This allows solar energy to easily pass through the atmosphere and be absorbed by the earth’s surface, which then reemits some of this energy at a longer wavelength called thermal infrared. As the emitted thermal infrared energy reaches the atmosphere, much of it is able to pass through it back 51

into space. The range of wavelengths where the earth’s emitted energy is able to pass through the atmosphere is called the atmospheric window. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb outgoing thermal infrared energy and reemit it back to the earth’s surface, thereby “closing” some of the atmospheric window that would otherwise allow that energy to pass through. This is known as the “greenhouse effect,” and it is a natural phenomenon that keeps global temperatures relatively stable so that our planet is habitable. However, the enhancement of this phenomenon that is produced by an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere closes more of the atmospheric window, which causes the planet to warm (6). Carbon Dioxide The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere is the key factor in the climate change discussion concerning greenhouse gases. The International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), released in 2013, identified CO2 as the primary contributor to the radiative forcing from 1750-2011 (7). Radiative forcing is a term you may frequently hear being used by climate scientists. It essentially describes the influence of a forcing, such as a greenhouse gas or solar energy, on the Earth’s energy budget. This energy budget can be calculated, and an imbalance of the energy budget affects whether the planet warms or cools. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s, the energy budget has tipped towards warming because of large amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Finding ways to reduce the amount of CO2 that humans emit in the industrial age is our biggest hurdle in combating the warming climate. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions come from two major sources: the burning of fossil fuels and land-use changes. The largest source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, which became largely practiced around the world following the Industrial Revolution. Types of fossils fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas. All of these carbon-based natural resources take millions of years to form after organic material is buried and subject to high temperatures and pressures under the surface of the Earth. When these fossil fuels are extracted and combusted for energy production, transportation, or industrial processes, carbon is released from that chemical reaction in the form of CO2 gas. Land-use changes also contribute to the rise in atmospheric CO2 when forested lands are cleared for development or agriculture. Trees and soils in forests capture and store CO2 from the atmosphere as they mature, which is known as a “carbon sink.” Decreasing the amount of forested land on the Earth diminishes one of the world’s major carbon sinks, which increases the quantity of CO2 being accumulated in the atmosphere. Many nations have realized the detrimental impacts of deforestation and have developed programs to restore forested lands. However, some areas in the tropics, where this sink is particularly important, have seen continued deforestation. Scientists first realized the degree to which the use of fossil fuels and deforestation was changing our atmosphere’s CO2 composition through a record 52

called the Keeling Curve. The Keeling Curve is an empirical, or observed, record of the continuously rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last several decades. It is the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, measured at the pristine mountaintop of Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Because it is far from the influence of any industrial or other anthropogenic influences, the CO2 record at Mauna Loa remains our most reliable tracker of the state of our atmosphere’s changing composition through the 21st Century. Since Charles Keeling’s first measurement in 1958, the average atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased more than 80 parts per million (ppm, or 0.008 %). Compared to the atmospheric CO2 record acquired from ice cores over the past 800,000 years, the Mauna Loa measurements from the last 60 years show a huge upward spike in CO2 concentration (8–10). It is clear that there is natural variability in atmospheric CO2 over time, however the level to which the CO2 concentration is currently climbing is “off the chart” (Figure 1). Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas to understand due to its large contribution to modern climate change. However, other greenhouse gases emitted by human activities also play a role. Increases in atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide concentrations also contribute to climate change.

Figure 1. 800,000-year record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations acquired from ice cores before 1958 and the Keeling Curve measurements at Mauna Loa after 1958. The horizontal line at CO2 concentration of 400 ppm indicates the present atmospheric level, which is significantly higher than any concentration seen in the last 800,000 years. Sources: Scripps Institution of Oceanography (8), MacFarling et al. 2006 (9), and Lüthi et al. 2008 (10). Methane Methane (CH4) accounts for the second-largest proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions after CO2 (11). CH4, however, is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, which means that it is better able to absorb the outgoing thermal infrared radiation that enhances the greenhouse effect. Given the same 53

amount of CH4 and CO2 in the atmosphere, the CH4 will warm the Earth about 28 times more than the CO2 over a 100-year period (12). Like CO2, the concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere has rapidly climbed since the Industrial Revolution, indicating humans’ role in its emissions (Figure 2) (13). Methane is produced mainly through anaerobic decay processes of organic materials in wetlands. However, CH4 is also produced through agriculture, landfill use, and the extraction and use of natural gas, coal, and oil. Anthropogenic emissions of CH4 currently exceed natural emissions by 50-65%, but warming temperatures could cause natural wetland emissions to increase further (14). The melting of permafrost in northern latitudes due to rising global temperatures is also a potential major emitter of methane. In a type of climate cycle known as a positive “feedback,” permafrost warms and melts, allowing buried plants that were frozen to begin decaying and releasing CH4. The additional CH4 in the atmosphere further enhances the greenhouse effect’s warming of the earth’s surface and melts more permafrost, so the cycle continues. Atmospheric methane concentrations actually seemed to plateau for about a decade from the 1990s to early 2000s, but by 2007 they began to increase again (14). Some studies suggest that methane released from the melting of permafrost in the Arctic could have caused the return in the rise of the methane concentrations in 2007 (15).

Nitrous Oxide Nitrous oxide (N2O) is considered the third most important greenhouse gas emitted by humans. It accounts for a much smaller proportion of global emissions than the gases previously mentioned, but it is about 265 times more efficient at absorbing outgoing radiation than CO2 over a 100-year period (12). The lifetime of atmospheric N2O is also estimated to be longer than CO2 and CH4 (12). This means that any N2O emitted today will remain in the atmosphere longer than the other greenhouse gases mentioned, so the effects of N2O will be felt long after it is actually emitted. The concentrations of this greenhouse gas have also rapidly increased since the beginning of the 19th Century (Figure 2) (13). Natural sources of N2O mainly include microbial processes in soils and the oceans. It is produced in anthropogenic activities such as the agricultural use of fertilizers, industrial processes, and wastewater management. The increased reliance on nitrogen-containing synthetic fertilizers for agriculture to feed an exponentially growing global population was found to be the main driver of the upward spike in atmospheric N2O (16). Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently at levels that the Earth has not experienced for at least 800,000 years (8–10). To give some perspective, the modern human species, homo sapiens, has only existed for about 200,000 years (17). That means that our modern human ancestors have never experienced a world with the greenhouse gas concentrations that we observe today and predict for the future! We have already begun to face challenges in adapting to this new climate and its impacts on the land and oceans.

54

Figure 2. Atmospheric concentrations of three major greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, and N2O – over the past 2000 years. Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The Physical Science Basis. Ch. 2: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing (13).

Rising Temperatures In the previous section, we looked at the rapid increase in the concentrations of major greenhouse gases over the past 200 years. We know that greenhouse gases absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth and remit energy back down to the surface. How has the relatively recent change in their concentrations affected global temperatures? A link between the rise in greenhouse gases in the Industrial era and global temperatures, which had been previously suggested in scientific studies, was reported again by Mann and Jones in the early 2000s (18). The Mann and Jones study was one of many to draw the same conclusion—anthropogenic emissions are dramatically raising global temperatures. The Mann and Jones study included a plot showing global temperature anomaly over the past two millennia, which was dubbed the “Hockey Stick” (18). Temperature anomaly is a commonly used metric to evaluate temperature changes in climate science. It is calculated as the difference between the average temperature at a fixed interval of time, commonly a 30-year instrumental reference period from 1961-1990, and the temperature at any given time. Therefore, during 1961-1991 on these plots the temperature anomaly would be zero. Any temperatures on the plot below this average temperature would have a negative value, and any temperatures greater than it would have a positive value. 55

Mann and Jones developed a record of global mean surface temperature anomalies over the last 2,000 years by combining proxies of temperature in the past, such as ice cores, tree rings, and sediment cores, with instrumental temperature data closer to present-day (18). To many, the resulting graph of global temperature anomaly seemed to look like a hockey stick because there was relatively little change in temperature anomaly up until about 1900, when it suddenly made a large spike upwards. Remember: This is the same timing as the spike in CO2 we saw in Figure 2, the greenhouse gases record. Did this graph show that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions and the observed rising global temperatures were linked? Scientists certainly thought so, but skeptics began to criticize the statistical methods used in the study and used this as a ploy to say that anthropogenic climate change is not real. They also argued that the current temperature rise could be due to a natural fluctuation that has caused temperatures on Earth to rise many times before. However, the key to the scientists’ argument that climate change is being caused by humans was not based on how much the temperature had risen. Instead, they debated that one of the major differences between the past and today was how fast the temperature had risen. In 2013, a new study in the journal Science by Marcott et al. reported another record of global mean surface temperature anomaly, this time spanning the last 11,300 years (19). This period spans the most recent geologic epoch (the Holocene), including the more recent Anthropocene time period. Like the Mann and Jones study in 2003, this new team combined paleoclimate proxies of global mean surface temperature with more recent instrumental data to develop their record of temperature anomaly based on a reference period from 4500-5500 years before the present. The Marcott et al. study determined that temperatures in the Holocene reached a maximum at about 7,000 years ago and began to steadily decline afterward (19). This decline was due to orbital variations that change the Earth’s position in relation to the sun, which we will talk more about in the next section. They found that the decade spanning 2000-2009 was warmer than about 72% of the past 11,000 years (19). The study also noted that global temperatures today have not yet exceeded the Holocene’s maximum temperature, but they are predicted to do so by the end of the 21st Century (19, 20). The most striking feature of this new global temperature anomaly record was the same sudden spike upwards around the start of the 20th Century that was seen in the scrutinized Mann and Jones study, correlating with the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations. In this longer record, it could clearly be seen that the global mean surface temperature has risen and fallen naturally throughout the Holocene. However, these natural variations have taken thousands of years to influence the temperature. Meanwhile, the warming over merely the past 100 years was shown to be occurring at a pace that is unprecedented since the last ice age. The recent warming actually seems to be reversing the long-term cooling trend that has been occurring for the last several thousand years (21). Based on many model projections, the IPCC reports that temperatures will continue to rise at this rapid rate unless drastic human emission reduction goals are met (22). 56

Natural Drivers of Climate Change Changes in the Earth’s climate throughout most of the Holocene and previously in Earth’s history are attributed to natural processes. Two major natural drivers of the earth’s climate are changes in solar energy and volcanic eruptions. While these natural variations do affect climate and global temperatures, neither of them can explain all of the rapid warming or changes in climate we have experienced in the past century. Solar Energy The sun is the earth’s primary source of energy, and it does not give off a constant amount of energy every year. The number of sunspots, or dark regions visible on the sun, is correlated with the amount of radiation that the sun is emitting into space—some of which will ultimately reach the earth. In years with higher numbers of sunspots, the sun is typically more active and emitting more energy. These years are known as Solar Maxima years. In contrast, Solar Minima years occur when there are relatively few sunspots and the sun is emitting less energy. The sunspots cycle between Solar Maxima and Solar Minima was discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1843, and occurs roughly every 11 years (23). These solar energy cycles can also undergo trends over longer timescales when more or fewer sunspots are counted within each Solar Maxima or Solar Minima (Figure 3) (24). This can affect the average amount of energy the earth is receiving over several decades or centuries. Like greenhouse gases, the amount of energy received also influences the earth’s energy balance and therefore the temperature of the surface. As seen in Figure 3, a colder time period in the 17th Century known as the “Little Ice Age” is likely due to an abnormal lack of sunspots known as the Maunder Minimum. Could changes in solar energy explain today’s warming? Sunspot numbers and solar energy output increased throughout the Industrial Revolution until 1958, when they reached a maximum (Figure 3). Since this maximum, however, sunspot numbers have declined with each successive sunspot cycle. If warming in the 20th Century were solely due to the amount of solar energy being received by the sun, global temperature should have begun to decrease after the 1958 maximum. Instead, temperatures have continued to climb. During longer periods of high solar energy, the global surface temperature only increases by about 0.1°C (25). Between 1980 and 2000, however, the temperature increased at a rate of 0.16°C per decade (20). Changes in solar energy output only account for approximately 10% of the temperature increase observed in the past century, so this natural driver does not explain the rise in temperatures we have observed (25). Another way that changes in incoming solar energy can affect the earth’s climate is through three types of orbital variations, called Milankovitch Cycles (26). The earth’s orbit around the sun changes shape (known as eccentricity) in cycles of approximately 100,000 years. The orbit’s shape varies from being roughly circular to being more elongated. When the orbit is elongated, the Earth is farther away from the sun at more times during the year, which generally causes cooling. 57

Figure 3. Yearly averaged number of sunspots from the 17th Century to the present, showing a time of decreased solar activity called the Maunder Minimum and a sunspot maximum in 1958. A downward trend in sunspot numbers has been observed since this maximum. Source: NASA/ Marshall Space Flight Center (24). In approximately 41,000 year cycles, the degree to which the earth tilts on its axis changes. The degree of axial tilt today is 23.5°, and this degree causes the seasons we experience throughout the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The seasons occur because the most intense solar radiation hits the earth’s surface at different latitudes throughout the year. Changes in the degree of axial tilt during obliquity cause more dramatic seasonal differences when there is a larger degree of tilt or smaller differences between seasons when there is a lesser degree of tilt. In approximately 26,000 year cycles, the earth experiences a “wobble” on its axis, known as a precession, that is much like a spinning top’s wobble as it slows down. During a precession, the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are pointed toward the sun at different times of the year than they do today. This causes both hemispheres’ seasons to occur at different times of the year. Ice ages typically occur when the Northern Hemisphere is pointed away from the sun during the time in the Earth’s orbit when it is farther from the sun. The Milankovitch cycles ultimately interact with each other to determine times of glaciation and deglaciation. The two most recent periods between ice ages, called interglacials, lasted about 10,000 years, which is about the length of the current, warm Holocene epoch (27). Additionally, the Northern Hemisphere is currently in a phase of reduced solar energy due to a decreased axial tilt. Both of these factors suggest that the Earth is due for another glacial period (27). However, the Holocene temperature anomaly record in the Marcott et al. study shows that the slow cooling trend that started about 7,000 years ago was disrupted by the sharp rise in global temperatures in the 20th Century (19). Another recent study suggested that the increase of CO2 from human activities since the Industrial Revolution could postpone the next ice age for over 50,000 years, effectively skipping over an entire glacial cycle (28). Volcanic Events In 1816, the New England region of the United States experienced an extraordinary snowfall event. This event was not unusual because of a record-breaking snowfall amount, but because the snow fell in the middle of 58

June. Along with snow in New England, the summer of 1816 brought unusually cold and stormy weather to many parts of the Northern Hemisphere (29). This phenomenon caused significant economic losses and famine from crop damage (30). The year of 1816 came to be known as “the year without a summer,” and global temperatures were about 2°C below average (31). Scientists now know that an explosive volcanic eruption in Indonesia in April of 1815, more than a year earlier, caused this strange climate anomaly in the summer of 1816. Volcanic eruptions spew rock particles and gases—such as sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO2—high into the atmosphere. If SO2 reaches the stratosphere, it can react with water vapor and spread out to form a “blanket” of sulfate aerosols that scatters sunlight away from the earth’s surface (21). This causes a temporary net cooling effect of global surface temperatures and could alter precipitation patterns. These aerosols can remain in the stratosphere for months or years because they are above the level from which rain falls that would wash them out of the lower atmosphere more quickly (30). Volcanic events have also interacted briefly with the rapid warming occurring in the 20th Century (Figure 4). Most recently, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 led to the third-coldest and wettest summer in the United States in the last 77 years (30). The timing and severity of explosive volcanic events is unpredictable, and the largest effects on climate occur within the two years following an eruption (21). The effect that future eruptions will have on radiative forcing and global surface temperatures depend on the amount of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere. These cooling effects are only measured in months or years, while anthropogenic emissions will warm the earth for centuries to come if they are not curbed. Volcanic eruptions affect the earth’s climate and surface temperatures, but not enough to counteract the warming trend observed over the last century.

How Do We Know Humans Are Responsible? Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening and that humans are the cause (32). Much like we trust doctors, experts in medicine, to diagnose and treat human illnesses, the public should trust climate scientists, experts in the earth’s systems, to diagnose the earth’s “illness.” The correlation between rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions after the Industrial Revolution and the parallel rise in global surface temperatures was only the first clue that human activities are causing this dramatic change. As scientists build more evidence about how the climate is changing, the conclusion that humans are responsible are becomes more and more clear. Carbon Isotopes One way to determine that the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are coming from human activities is to look at a particular tracer within the atoms of the CO2 molecule itself. This tracer is known as an isotope. Isotopes of an element are atoms with the same number of protons, which identify the element, and different 59

numbers of neutrons within the nucleus of the atom. This gives atoms of the same element different masses, which is denoted as a superscript number and then the element’s symbol (e.g. 12C means that the carbon atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, whereas 13C means that it has 6 protons and 7 neutrons). Many elements, like carbon, naturally have small proportions of stable isotopes. Various physical and biological processes distribute certain isotopes of an element to different places on the earth. For example, during photosynthesis plants prefer to take the lighter isotopes of carbon (12C) out of the atmosphere instead of the heavier isotope (13C). This results in plant materials having lower ratios of 13C to 12C than the atmosphere. Scientists have noticed that since the Industrial Revolution, carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 have become surprisingly lighter and lighter (33). They determined that prior to the 1800s, the carbon isotope ratio of 13C to 12C in the atmosphere had stayed relatively stable due to natural processes, even during times of gaseous CO2 emissions from volcanic eruptions (33). What could be causing this dramatic decrease in the modern atmosphere’s carbon isotope signature? Scientists realized that fossil fuels are geologically transformed ancient plant materials with low ratios of 13C to 12C. As fossil fuels are extracted and combusted, their carbon is reacted into CO2 with their specific carbon isotope signature. The declining isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 actually reflects the burning of fossil fuels! This discovery became another piece of evidence that the observed increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are due to human activities and not natural processes. Climate Models Scientists have been developing models to simulate the climate system since the late 1800s, even before they could do so computationally. These models are developed using known physical, biological, and chemical principles and help scientists understand what has driven the climate system in the past and what drives it today. Before projecting a climate model to the future to make predictions, the models are carefully evaluated for their ability to replicate past known conditions. Scientists use climate models to simulate different climate conditions. These models provide more evidence that humans are the cause of modern climate change. Figure 4 shows the comparison between two types of climate models—one accounting for only natural forcings of climate change, like solar variations and volcanic aerosols (b), and one accounting for both natural and anthropogenic forcings (34). The models simulating only natural forcings clearly diverge from the observed temperature anomaly curve (black line). Instead, they show that the global average surface temperatures should actually be slightly decreasing after about 1960 due to natural processes (34). Meanwhile, the models that include both natural and anthropogenic forcings (a), like greenhouse gas emissions, successfully capture the continued warming trend after 1960 (34). This climate model experiment provides yet another piece of evidence that human activities are causing the continuously increasing global surface temperatures. 60

Figure 4. Two types of climate model simulations for temperature anomaly: a) having both natural and anthropogenic drivers of climate change and b) having only natural drivers. Thin lines represent multiple model runs, with the mean indicated as a bold line in the respective color. The black bold line shows the observed temperature record, which closely correlates with the model that simulates both natural and anthropogenic drivers of climate change. Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The Physical Science Basis. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change (34). During the earth’s 4.6 billion-year history, it has experienced many different climates and atmospheric CO2 levels. The global climate has ranged from major ice ages, with ice covering the entire earth, to periods with no polar ice at all. During the Mesozoic era when dinosaurs inhabited the land and seas, atmospheric CO2 levels are thought to have been much higher than the present with much 61

warmer global temperatures. However, the rate at which the changes in climate are occurring today is unprecedented since before the evolution of modern humans. There is no doubt that the earth as a planet will survive our impacts on its climate and environment; it has rebounded after major catastrophes before, albeit over millions of years. However, the modern human species must now begin to adapt to conditions it has never experienced before. The consequences of changing our climate and environment so drastically is not that it will destroy our planet, but that it will destroy the habitability of the planet for our fragile human species.

References The World Bank. CO2 Emissions (metric tons per capita). http:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?end=2011&star=1960 &view=chart (accessed Aug. 23, 2016). 2. IEA. Poland: Electricity and Heat for 2013. http://www.iea.org/ statistics/statisticssearch/report/?year=2013&country=POLAND&product =ElectricityandHeat (accessed Aug. 23, 2016). 3. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for July 2016, August 2016.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ global/201607 (accessed August 30, 2016). 4. University of Leicester. ‘Anthropocene’: Potential New Geological Time interval. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160829094255.htm (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 5. Crutzen, P. J. Geology of Mankind. Nature 2002, 415, 23. 6. Rodhe, H.; Charlson, R.; Crawford, E. Svante Arrhenius and the Greenhouse Effect. Ambio 1997, 26, 2–5. 7. 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; Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K.; Meyer, L. A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. 8. Keeling, C. D.; Piper, S. C.; Bacastow, R. B.; Wahlen, M.; Whorf, T. P.; Heimann, M.; Meijer, H. A. Exchanges of Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the Terrestrial Biosphere and Oceans from 1978 to 2000. I. Global Aspects; SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06; Scripps Institution of Oceanography: San Diego, 2001. 9. MacFarling Meure, C.; Etheridge, D.; Trudinger, C.; Steele, P.; Langenfelds, R.; van Ommen, T.; Smith, A.; Elkins, J. The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, 14. 10. Lüthi, D.; Le Floch, M.; Bereiter, B.; Blunier, T.; Barnola, J-M.; Siegenthaler, U.; Raynaud, D.; Jouzel, J.; Fischer, H.; Kawamura, K.; Stocker, T. F. High-Resolution Carbon Dioxide Concentration Record 650,000-800,000 Years before Present. Nature 2008, 453, 379–382. 11. 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.; Pichs-Madruga, R.; Sokona, Y.; 1.

62

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

Farahani, E.; Kadner, S.; Seyboth, K.; Adler, A.; Baum, I.; Brunner, S.; Eickemeier, P.; Kriemann, B.; Savolainen, J.; Schlömer, S.; von Stechow, C.; Zwickel, T.; Minx, J. C.; Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2014. Myhre, G.; Shindell, D.; Bréon, F.-M.; Collins, W.; Fuglestvedt, J.; Huang, J.; Koch, D.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Lee, D.; Mendoza, B.; Nakajima, T.; Robock, A.; Stephens, G.; Takemura, T.; Zhang, H. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P. M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2013. Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Nganga, J.; Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Schulz, M.; Van Dorland, R. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2007; Chapter 2. Ciais, P., Sabine, C.; Bala, G.; Bopp, L.; Brovkin, V.; Canadell, J.; Chhabra, A.; DeFries, R.; Galloway, J.; Heimann, M.; Jones, C.; Le Quéré, C.; Myneni, R. B.; Piao, S.; Thornton, P. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P. M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2013. Dlugokencky, E. J.; Bruhwiler, L.; White, J. W. C.; Emmons, L. K.; Montzka, S. A.; Masarie, K. A.; Lang, P. M.; Crotwell, A. M.; Miller, J. B.; Gatti, L. V. Observational Constraints on Recent Increases in the Atmospheric CH4 Burden. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 38, 18. Park, S.; Croteau, P.; Boering, K. A.; Etheridge, D. M.; Ferretti, D.; Fraser, P. J.; Kim, K-R.; Krummel, P. B.; Langenfelds, R. L.; van Ommen, T. D.; Steele, L. P.; Trudinger, C. M. Trends and Seasonal Cycles in the Isotopic Composition of Nitrous Oxide Since 1940. Nat. Geosci. 2012, 5, 261–265. McDougall, I.; Brown, F. H.; Fleagle, J. G. Sapropels and the Age of Hominins Omo I and II, Kibish, Ethiopia. J. Hum. Evol. 2008, 55, 409–420. Mann, M. E.; Jones, P. D. Global Surface Temperature over the Past Two Millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2003, 30, 15. Marcott, S. A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years. Science 2013, 339 (6124), 1198–1201. Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F.; Collins, W. D.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gaye, A. T.; Gregory, J. M.; Kitoh, A.; Knutti, R.; Murphy, J. M.; Noda, A.; Raper, S. C. 63

21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

30.

B.; Watterson, I. G.; Weaver, A. J.; Zhao, Z.-C. Global Climate Projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2007. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Alexander, L. V.; Allen, S. K.; Bindoff, N. L.; Bréon, F.-M.; Church, J. A.; Cubasch, U.; Emori, S.; Forster, P.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gillett, N.; Gregory, J. M.; Hartmann, D. L.; Jansen, E.; Kirtman, B.; Knutti, R.; Krishna Kumar, K.; Lemke, P.; Marotzke, J.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Meehl, G. A.; Mokhov, I. I.; Piao, S.; Ramaswamy, V.; Randall, D.; Rhein, M.; Rojas, M.; Sabine, C.; Shindell, D.; Talley, L. D.; Vaughan, D. G.; Xie, S.-P. Technical Summary. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P. M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2013. Collins, M.; Knutti, R.; Arblaster, J.; Dufresne, J.-L.; Fichefet, T.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gao, X.; Gutowski, W. J.; Johns, T.; Krinner, G.; Shongwe, M.; Tebaldi, C.; Weaver, A. J.; Wehner, M. Long-Term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P. M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2013. Schwabe, S. H. Sonnen — Beobachtungen im Jahre 1843. Astron. Notes 1844, 21 (15), 234–235. NASA/ Marshall Space Flight Center. Solar Cycle Primer. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarcycleprimer.html#.V8iRyxSqSf5 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). Lean, J. L. Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate. WIREs Clim. Change 2010, 1, 111–122. Milanković, M. M. Canon of Insolation and the Ice-Age Problem. Koniglich Serbische Academie 1941. Berger, A.; Loutre, M. F. An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead? Science 2002, 297 (5585), 1287–1288. Ganopolski, A.; Winkelmann, R.; Schellnhuber, H. J. Critical Insolation-CO2 Relation for Diagnosing Past and Future Glacial inception. Nature 2016, 529, 200–203. UCAR Center for Science Education. Mount Tambora and the Year Without a Summer. http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/mount-tambora-and-yearwithout-summer (accessed Aug. 29, 2016). Williams, J. The Epic Volcano Eruption That Led to the ‘Year without a Summer.’ Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital64

31. 32.

33.

34.

weather-gang/wp/2015/04/24/the-epic-volcano-eruption-that-led-to-theyear-without-a-summer/ (accessed Aug. 29, 2016). Klingaman, W. K.; Klingaman, N. P. The Year Without a Summer; St. Martin’s: New York, 2013. Cook, J.; Oreskes, N.; Doran, P. T.; Anderegg, W. R. L.; Verheggen, B.; Maibach, E. W.; Carlton, J. S.; Lewandowsky, S.; Skuce, A. G.; Green, S. A.; Nuccitelli, D.; Jacobs, P.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Rice, K. Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Cause Global Warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 4. Böhm, F.; Haase-Schramm, A.; Eisenhauer, A.; Dullo, W.-C.; Joachimski, M. M.; Lehnert, H.; Reitner, J. Evidence for Preindustrial Variations in the Marine Surface Water Carbonate System from Coralline Sponges. Geochem., Geophys., Geosyst. 2002, 3 (3), 1–13. Hegerl, G. C.; Zwiers, F. W.; Braconnot, P.; Gillett, N. P.; Luo, Y.; Marengo Orsini, J. A.; Nicholls, N.; Penner, J. E.; Stott, P. A. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 2007.

65

Chapter 5

Space Technologies Paired with Terrestrial Technology David John Millard* Virginia Commonwealth University Ringgold, 907 Floyd Ave., Richmond, Virginia 23284-2512, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

Although the mission statement of the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) states they are concerned with “scientific discovery and aeronautics research” as well as space exploration, they have a great influence on data collection, presentation, and education concerning climate change. Paired with other agencies such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), data showing a warming planet and images of our changing landscape is now able to be viewed and give a possible outlook of what is to come if we do not drastically change our current path.

An old proverb presents the scenario of a frog in a pot of water: if a frog is placed in a pot of boiling water, it will quickly jump out, feeling and realizing the danger it is in and avoiding any injury. Although if the frog is placed in room-temperature water, and the water is gradually heated, the frog would not notice a difference and slowly die from not realizing the danger it is in. The issue of climate change can be recognized in this example, since many people are not being objective and looking outside the box that we are currently living in and seeing changes for what they really are. Recently, “climate change” has become a more recognized and politicized term in American society and all over the world, although it has been studied for decades prior by international scientists. The USGS and NOAA (formally the Weather Bureau) existed prior to NASA and focus on studying earth sciences. These two agencies carry out vital roles in the research and observational sciences that encompass climate change. NOAA © 2017 American Chemical Society

focuses on the weather (which is not to be confused or used interchangeably with “climate”), oceans and coasts, fisheries, and satellites. NOAA like the other agencies, has a climate section that keeps track of the traditional climate change data. This includes the Keeling Curve, which indicates the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as data for land ice and increasing global temperature (1). The USGS has similar databases but brings an interesting perspective to the effects of climate change. Pictures taken at the turn of the 20th century are paired with photographs taken recently to show the vast change in landscapes. Most notable are the photographs of glaciers that have receded (Figure 1), showing a small glimpse of their former self, or those that have melted all together (2).

Figure 1. Glacier retreat in Alaska (3).

How the Beginning of Space Observation Came To Be When NASA was founded at the beginning of the Space Race in 1958 (http://history.nasa.gov/brief.html), its main objective was to conduct space observations but not conduct any earth science observations directly (4). The agencies later developed cooperation that hinged on the development of observational technologies by NASA with the sceientific research performed by each agency independently. During the recession of the 1970s, the budgets of NOAA, USGS, and NASA were cut, forcing partnerships. With the emerging 68

space technology that NASA was developing, the use of satellites became a possibility to study the earth from low-earth orbit, coupled with land-based measurements. After budget cuts in that same decade, the USGS and NOAA handed over much of the planetary research to NASA. Since they are public agencies under the control of Congress, NASA’s focus shifted to the developing needs of the nation, including fuel efficiency, the depletion of the ozone, and climate change. Later, NASA launched the Mariner probes to Venus and Mars, planets that scientists thought were habitable. Among the many scientific discoveries that these probes made, one of the most interesting was that Venus is an oven, with a runaway greenhouse effect generating soaring temperatures, while Mars is a frozen desert. The probes sent back data indicating that water may have been present on Mars, but because of the freezing temperatures now present, any water that may have been there would now be frozen. Scientists, as happens with many experiments, were left with more questions than answers (4).

The Problem at Hand Returning back to earth, the Keeling Curve, which documents the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is the first long-term, direct measurement of CO2 pollution in the atmosphere. The curve measures the amount of this primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The data shows an annual cyclical pattern: the earth seems to be “breathing out” as more CO2 is released into the atmosphere when the northern hemisphere goes into the fall and winter months. During this period trees lose their leaves, which decay on the ground, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When spring and summer arrive in the Northern Hemisphere, the new budding leaves “inhale” the carbon dioxide, pulling it out of the atmosphere as they photosynthesize. The Southern Hemisphere goes through the same cycle at opposite times of year, of course, but because of the increased land mass in the Northern Hemisphere, the Keeling curve is reflective of the growing season in the North. The Keeling Curve, shown in Figure 2, clearly indicates that the baseline of the cyclical CO2 level has been rising each year of its measurement. This continuous, directly measured data, which began in 1958, can been extended back hundreds of thousands of years thanks to the proxy data of ice core samples that have been extracted in the polar regions. These samples of trapped ancient air in the ice and snow show that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at levels not seen in more than 800,000 years (1). Scientists have known for years that there was a correlation between carbon dioxide and climate change, but only in recent years has it become more of a talking point to the masses in a general, scientific, and political view. There are may types of greenhouse gasses, but the best known is carbon dioxide, the gas that we exhale every day while breathing, the same gas that is released when we run our cars or anything that has been gassed up with fossil fuels. The excess carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses like methane and chlorofluorocarbons CFCs) that are increasing in the atmosphere trap solar energy here on earth, much like rolled-up car windows on a sunny day. This is called the “enhanced Greenhouse effect,” and it is a direct effect of increased burning of 69

fossel fuels and other manmade contributing factors, such as deforestation. The enhanced Greenhouse effect also impacts a multitude of other cycles, because of the interconnectivity of the global environment. With an increased temperature comes less polar land and sea ice; less ice means a diminished reflective surface to turn away solar radiation. Instead, it is absorbed by the darker ocean, causing more heat to be trapped. This is an example of positive feedback, where the outcome (less snow and ice) augments the original stimulus (increased temperatures). With the ice melting into the ocean, sea levels rise, causing coastal flooding, increased storm surges, and contamination of coastal freshwater supplies. The warmer oceans can also help generate stronger storms and more extreme weather. Melting glaciers can also limit the amount of fresh water that people have available to drink and water crops. The warmer atmosphere can now hold more water vapor, which can increase droughts, and when the limit of water is reached, the skies can create torrential downpours onto the dry soil. The dry soil can’t absorb the water like before, causing flooding and mudslides.

Figure 2. The Keeling Curve showing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (1).

Data Collection: Clouds and Aerosols As mentioned before, data has been recorded for decades—resulting in the Keeling curve—and going back hundreds of thousands of years thanks to ice core samples. Today, with advancing technology, satellites can help with the collection of data and the documentation of the changing planet. These satellites come not just from the United States, but from Argentina, Japan, Germany, Canada, and the 70

European Space Agency (4). Some from these have their own means to conduct the launches and to maintain the satellites; others will work in conjunction with other countries in a joint effort to increase knowledge for the benefit of mankind. The instruments, which can be highly sensitive, have to be calibrated and so they will last in the extreme temperatures and harshness of space. To validate calibration, the Airborne Science Program uses an aircraft-based platform to ensure the proper functioning of all components. When on these flights, measurements are taken and can be used as a standalone or in conjunction with satellite data to give a better understanding of what is being recorded. This preliminary test is the first step of almost any type of instrument destined for the harsh environment of space (5, 6). To help with validating technology in space, the New Millennium Program’s Earth Observing 1 (EO-1 NMP) is essential. This mission is vital to validating the new instrumentation that is sent up into orbit for earth observation. It also validates different communications technology to send the data that is recorded back to earth. The testing includes advanced software that allows for an increased level of autonomy in the satellite. This increased autonomy can include automatic adjustments if the satellite loses altitude or the automatic warmup and calibration of the instruments on board without commands from the operators on earth (5, 7). The primary driver for climate change is carbon dioxide. The Keeling curve has documented this from the ground. In orbit of the Earth, various assets are also documenting this release of carbon and other forms of pollution, such as particular forms of aerosols and methane. Aura, CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation), CATS (Cloud-Aerosol Transport System), CloudSat, and the Obiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) all focus on the pollution in the atmosphere (5, 8–12). OCO-2 is dedicated to studying atmospheric carbon dioxide, like the Mona Loa observation area, but monitoring from space allows for not only another reading to verify the ground findings, but an almost unobstructed way to test for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (5, 12). Aura is a part of the “A-Train,” which is a series of satellites that observe Earth, each with its own mission. In this series of satellites, Aura is the “caboose,” monitoring the ozone, trace gasses, and aerosols in the atmosphere (5, 8). These aerosols, such as hydrofluorocarbon and chlorofluorohydrocarbon, can have damaging effects on the ozone. These two aerosols specifically were responsible for much of the depletion of the ozone layer. Some aerosols can have a cooling effect on the atmosphere by reflecting the heat from the sun back out into space, and some aerosols have a warming effect. The data from the Aura satellite is not only used to determine the trends in ozone, but also how these gasses and aerosols change the air quality and how they effect climate change. CALIPSO works in conjunction with CloudSat. CALIPSO enables scientists to generate 3-D models on the lifespan of aerosols, how they form, evolve and impact the weather, climate and air quality (5, 9). CloudSat aids CALIPSO with the generation of the 3-D model with the help of its radar, which is 1,000 times more sensitive than the weather radars used on Earth (5, 11). Finally, CATS uses LIDAR, which is a more advanced form of radar that uses a laser to document the properties of clouds and aerosols and how they effect the Earth’s climate (5, 10).

71

The Act of Melting The melting of ice, and the subsequent sea level rise that occurs when land ice melts, is due primarily to the rising temperature from excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are two types of ice that are being monitored: sea ice and land ice. Sea ice, as the name suggests, resides in the sea and melts and regrows each season as the planet performs its normal warming and cooling from the changes of the seasons. Sea ice can be seen as the ice cubes already in a glass of water that you have poured—it can melt and the water level stays relatively equal, since the density of solid water is only sliglhtly less than liquid water and the volume of ice is already accounted for in the glass of water. One problem that scientists have reported is the lack of sea ice growth in the past few decades. A simple search of the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that between 1981 and 2010, more than 7.3 million square kilometers of sea ice has not recovered from its previous extent in the northern hemisphere, as seen in Figure 3 (13). The ice that does form has also been thinner than in previous years. A tactic that may be shown by people who like to skew the data in their own interest is to show a small segment of this graph where the ice seems to recover near 2010, but that is omitting the rest of the data, which shows the obvious negative slope.

Figure 3. Sea ice decline (14). Land ice constitutes glaciers and the ice that covers the great majority of the continent of Antarctica. Referring back to the glass of water, land ice would be ice that is added to that glass of water, increasing the overall volume of water, eventually causing an overflow from the glass if the water level reaches high 72

enough. This height is inching closer with increasing sea levels, which has been climbing steadily over the past two decades (15). If you imagine the glass of water as the ocean and the area around the glass—places such as Miami, New Orleans, and the Floridian peninsula, which are all very close to, or below, sea level—is in danger of sea level rise. There is an additional detriment for planet Earth with the melting of glaciers. Not only are these glaciers beautiful to look at when visiting national parks, but they are also vital to the fresh water supply for many people. One of the most visible signs that something is not right with the environment is to view the many documented timelapse photos of glacier retreats from USGS, NASA, or NPS (National Park Service) websites. The shocking difference in landscapes from the rapidly disappearing glaciers is truly alarming (16).

Analyzing Climate Change’s Effects on Water The data from the sea and land ice is collected by a variety of agencies. The NSIDC documents the extent of sea ice. But when trying to determine the amount of ice that is being lost and regrown, a larger-scale operation and field of view is needed. Satellites such as Aqua, GRACE, Landsat-8, and Terra serve as data collectors from orbit (5, 17–20). Aqua is a part of the “A-Train” group of satellites mentioned above. Aqua is the first satellite in the group, and it collects information on atmospheric water and precipitation, as well as sea and land ice cover (5, 17). GRACE, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, is a pair of satellites equidistant from each other, but the distance varies based on the changes in gravity from the movement of large masses of water and ice (5, 18). One of the measurements taken by the Landsat-8 satellite, meanwhile, includes documenting glacier melt (5, 19). Finally, Terra analyzes the atmosphere, ocean, land, and snow and ice to examine the water, carbon and energy cycles of Earth (5, 20). These cycles include how the water is evaporated from a body of water, condensed, and precipitated back down to land. A disruption in this cycle can cause droughts or torrential downpours. The increased global air and ocean temperatures and their subsequent effects on the water cycles are the catalysts behind many extreme weather patterns linked to climate change. The increase in ocean temperatures is causing sea water to expand, which also contributes to sea level rise (15). This “thermal expansion” of the ocean waters, together with the effect of land ice melt, can lead to flooding and larger storm surge, while the warmer oceans are fuel for stronger storms. With two-thirds of the planet’s surface covered in water, it makes sense that there are multiple satellites in orbit that are designed with water in mind. From sea level to wave height, which indicates the strength of the storms present, orbiters such as Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), ISS-RapidScat, Ocean Surface Topography Mission, Jason2 (OSTM), and Jason-3 have their own specific ways of collecting measurements and data for documenting the changing environment (5, 21–24).

73

The End Product “Storm of the century,” “100-Year Flood,” or “Decade of Drought” seem to be headlines that were repeated continuously over the past decade when significant storms, droughts, floods, or other natural disasters occured. From the ongoing drought in California, to Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy, the future of what a warmed planet has in store for us is terrifying. These storms can’t be ignored when it comes to their power and how they have gotten that powerful. With the help of LandSat-7 and Terra, images of storm damage, droughts, and wildfires can be seen from both before and after perspectives (5, 19, 20). These imaging techniques also provide the before and after views of mountaintops that have been mined using a technique that removes the entire top of the mountain to expose and collect the coal beneath. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the mining companies to replace the soil and vegetation as they were before the mining process, but after removing materials, the original state cannot be duplicated. The images collected after the reclamation make it quite clear that the mountain does not look the same as the original. A recent study has shown that this type of mining causes toxic conditions to the wildlife that inhabit these mined areas, both land and aquatic wildlife (25). All of this raw data collected by LandSat-7 and Terra can be formulated into different graphs and charts which are accessible online at each agencies’ website. In today’s culture, video seems to drive everything, which is why this data is put together into videos that can be seen online through NASA and their Hyperwall, seen in Figure 4. In this figure, the Hyperwall, a series of linked displays, is providing a global view of where aerosols are formed, how they travel through the jet stream and then eventually dissipate (27). There are also times when natural events such as volcanic eruptions occur, and this display can track where the events occur and how the emitted gasses spread throughout the atmosphere. Other presentations include the before-and-after of natural disasters, the rate of urban development in regions, deforestation, and a host of other natural and manmade changes. I was first introduced to this presentation format in 2013 at the National ACS conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. The stunning detail that is shown gives new meaning to the adage that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 19th Conference of Parties (COP19), I was able to view the wall again. This time, there were more stuning videos. One such video was a view of Super Storm Sandy gaining strength in the Caribbean and thundering up the eastern seaboard into New Jersey. The diameter of the storm stretched from southern Maine to the shores of North Carolina. This visual representation, depicting the wind strength and the precipitation totals, coupled with the images of the devastation to a town in New Jersey hit home more than any article can. The visuals that are shown are a wake up call to what the new normal may become if we do not stop emitting large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The wall was also able to couple the graph of sea ice extent with a visual representation of the extent over the North Pole. At COP19, the entire scientific body, from every major country and organization around the world, had 74

the same overall message. The message is that they have the data, and the data demands that something be done. The environment that we have on this Earth is a precious thing. One of my idols from the 1990’s, Bill Nye, used his television show to promote scientific literacy and encourage learning. His show featured a segment on the greenhouse gas effect and the effects of climate change. Following Nye’s television career, he created many simple videos discussing scientific quandaries, including the fragility and the causes of this climate epidemic. One of these displays a simple technique of putting two globes in sealed containers under heat lamps. One of the containers has carbon dioxide pumped into it, and you can see the thermometer rise while the control, with no added CO2, does not. This simple experiment shows that excess carbon dioxide can cause a rise in the temperature of a system (28). The fragility of the earth is easily described by another one of my idols, Neil deGrasse Tyson, in a comparison of Earth to a school room globe. If earth was the size of that globe, our atmosphere wouldn’t be any thicker than the lacquer on it (29). These two individuals are also the faces of the “debate” that is going on, even though the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that 97% agree climate warming trends are due to human activities (30).

Figure 4. The NASA Hyperwall on display in Warsaw, Poland, during COP19 (26).

75

New Generation, Same Tactics It is not too late to change our ways when it comes to the warming planet. This is also not the first time that scientists of the world have provided scientific evidence on a topic and that has been met with resistance. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientists started to notice something over the southern pole of the planet. The ozone layer, which helps protect us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays, was diminishing. Over time, more and more data in the peer-reviewed scientific literature confirmed the depletion of the ozone layer. Yet, the general public was deceived by other organizations that sought profits over the health of the citizens of the world. It wasn’t until the Montréal Protocol in the late 1980s that the public started to take action and listen to those who did not have a vested interest in the sale of products that ate away at our fragile ozone layer (31). The Montreal Protocol was the first time that a group of countires joined to change their ways for the sake of the planet. After the resulting public outcry and boycott of aerosol sprays, which contained Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals that were hazardous to ozone, the companies that had denied the claims of the world’s scientists were finally forced to reduce CFC use and production. This type of deception by profit seekers is being employed again today, with a new type of vested interest but the same kind of misinformation. When broadcast on the news, it appears as though there is a ‘debate’ when it comes to climate change, but there is none. Much of the media presents one person on each “side” in an interview which provides a skewed idea that there is scientific evidence that humans are not responsible for global warming, while 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is warming and that human activities are to blame (30). Scientists and climatologists have presented evidence and formed predictions about the world to come. Increased sea levels, stronger storms, longer droughts, more wildfires, colder winters, hotter summers, and much more are what is in store if we do not dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption. If there were two “sides,” I wonder what the worst-case scenario for each side of the argument would be. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, and the scientists predictions are correct, the damage we are doing to the earth will not be able to be reversed and we will have to adapt to living in a new type of world. People who have the opportunity to do something about this will have grandchildren and great grandchildren growing up on a much different planet. Even if the scientists’ predictions are incorrect, the fossil fuels that we rely on will eventually run out. Natural gas, gasoline, coal, and oil are all finite; they each have a point at which they can no longer be extracted. Looking at the other side of the argument, if we rise to the challenge of the 21st century and change to renewable sources of energy, we won’t be dependent on foreign suppliers, and we won’t have to have our military protecting foreign oil wells from any type of attack. We can mitigate the change that has already started to occur. If we do change and the scientists are wrong, we still have all of the pros of the argument—no dependence on foreign oil, cleaner air, fewer health risks from pollution. The earth is trying to tell us that something is wrong, and the scientists reporting this information are speaking for the Earth. When will we listen and 76

change our ways so that we can all leave our offspring in a better position and a better place than the generation prior?

References 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html (accessed August 20, 2016). USGS Science Explorer. Climate Change. https://www.usgs.gov/science/ science-explorer/Climate+Change (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Global Climate Change. Graphic: Dramitic Glacier Melt. http:// climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/ (accessed October 22, 2016). NASA Global Climate Change. NASA’s Role, Taking a Global Perspective on Earth’s Climate. http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/ (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Global Climate Change. NASA’s Role, Operating Missions. http:// climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/missions/ (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Airborne Science Program. Current Activities. https:// airbornescience.nasa.gov/program/current_activities (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA. Earth Observing – 1 (NMP). https://science.nasa.gov/missions/eo-1/ (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Aura Atmospheric Chemistry. Why Aura?. https:// aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/whyaura.html (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA about CALIPSO. Overview. http://www-calipso.larc.nasa.gov/about/ (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA. Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS). http://www.nasa.gov/ mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1037.html#overview (accessed August 20, 2016). Colorado State Univeristy Department of Atmospheric Science. CLOUDSAT. http://cloudsat.atmos.colostate.edu/overview (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory OCO-2. Mission. http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ mission/ (accessed August 20, 2016). National Snow & Ice Data Center. Sea Ice Index. https://nsidc.org/data/ seaice_index/ (accessed August 20, 2016). National Snow & Ice Data Center. Artic Sea Ice News & Analysis. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/10/monthly_ice_09_NH.png (accessed October 22, 2016). NASA. Sea Level. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed August 20, 2016). USGS, NPS. Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park. https:// www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/upload/USGS_GlacRetreat_2013.pdf (accessed August 20, 2016). NASA Aqua Project Science. Images + Data. http://aqua.nasa.gov/content/ images-data (accessed August 20, 2016). 77

18. NASA GRACE Tellus Gravity Recovery & Climate Experiment. Grace Mission. http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/grace/ (accessed August 20, 2016). 19. NASA Landsat. Landsat Overview. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ landsat/overview/index.html (accessed August 20, 2016). 20. NASA TERRA The EOS Flagship. Mission. http://terra.nasa.gov/about/ mission (accessed August 20, 2016). 21. NASA Precipitation Measurement Missions. Science Objectives. https:// pmm.nasa.gov/GPM/science-objectives (accessed August 20, 2016). 22. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Winds Measuring Ocean Winds from Space Missions RapidScat. https://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/RapidScat/ (accessed August 20, 2016). 23. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ocean Surface Topography From Space. Missions Spacecraft and Instruments. http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/ ostmjason2/spacecraftandinstruments/ (accessed 20, 2016). 24. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Ocean Surface Topography from Space Missions Jason-3. http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/jason3/ (accessed August 20, 2016). 25. EPA. The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (2011 Final). https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/ recordisplay.cfm;jsessionid=CC4EC1286E9EF7CEB44B980AB53A06D4. cfpub?deid=225743&CFID=77312151&CFTOKEN=21220125 (accessed August 20, 2016). 26. Photo by David Millard. 27. NASA’s Earth Observing System. About NASA’s Hyperwall. http:// eospso.nasa.gov/content/about-nasas-hyperwall (accessed August 20, 2016). 28. YouTube. Climate 101 with Bill Nye. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8 (accessed August 20, 2016). 29. Twitter. Neil deGrasse Tyson. https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/ 89338903483518978 (accessed August 20, 2016). 30. NASA. Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate Is Warming. http:// climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (accessed August 20, 2016). 31. UNEP. The Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montreal-protocolsubstances-deplete-ozone-layer (accessed August 20, 2016).

78

Chapter 6

Living Oceans N. A. Ingram* University of New England, 11 Hills Beach Road, Biddeford, Maine 04005, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

The world’s oceans encompass more than 70% of the Earth’s surface. These bodies of water have historically acted as a significant buffer against anthropogenic carbon emissions, however this continuous inundation is now changing the chemistry of the marine ecosystems. Exploitation of the oceans is widespread, including but not limited to, the buffering ability, overfishing, and habitat destruction. Until very recently, climate policy pertaining to the marine environment has been negligible. Despite the lack of conservation efforts on the part of policymakers, smaller groups have been making strides in marine protection and fisheries management. As the momentum has grown, ocean policy has finally been brought to the forefront and has been included in the Paris Agreement. As the appre of the oceans grows, so does the possibility for a better tomorrow.

Introduction In November of 2013, I attended the 19th Conference of Parties (COP19) as an American Chemical Society student representative. At the time, I was about to complete my Bachelor’s Degree in Marine Science and was very interested in climate policy pertaining to marine ecosystems. Armed with enthusiasm and an understanding of the importance of Earth’s oceans, I entered the convention in Warsaw, Poland and was disappointed to find that the presence of ocean-centric policy was negligible. The world’s oceans make up more than 70% of the Earth’s surface. Totaling nearly 1.35 billion cubic kilometers in volume, these waters influence global weather patterns, offer habitat to more than 25% of all known species, and serve as the best natural defense against the effects of climate change. In the past century, the global temperature has increased by one degree celsius, © 2017 American Chemical Society

however without the buffering ability of our oceans, that increase would have been an astonishing 36 degrees celsius. Despite all this, it was still overlooked in the world of climate policy (1–3). The 2013 conference commenced in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, which had struck the Philippines mere days before the opening of the convention. One of the most powerful storms on record, leaving 14 million Filipinos affected in its wake, it seemed like nature’s perfect call to action as the delegates gathered to discuss climate policy and mitigation; but this was not the case. On “Ocean Day” at COP19, some of the concerns were addressed but were quickly drowned out by the multitude of other climate policy issues. As time has progressed, however, the concern for our oceans has moved closer to the forefront. At the 2015 COP21 in Paris, over 150 parties and organizations—ranging from governments and NGOs to the private sector—came together to highlight the challenges facing the oceans. In addition to supporting the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the International Coastal and Ocean Organization (Global Ocean Forum) was able to release a roadmap for Global Climate Action, depicting actions to be taken in the next five years (4). One of the most important points of this roadmap is the understanding that we need to “do more, faster, and now” (4). This recognition is monumental in the fight against climate change. The recent ratification of the Paris Agreement by the United States and China, paired with this motivated International Coastal and Ocean Organization, shows more progress than I could have ever hoped for in a single year. Since those policies have yet to be enforced though, I wanted to address some of the changes happening within the oceans and the mitigation efforts currently being used to combat those changes.

Recent Conservation Efforts Recently, major progress has been made in preserving the various marine areas. The most notable preservation effort has been the addition of 1,146,798 square kilometers to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM), set aside by President Barack Obama in August of 2016 (5). A Marine National Monument is a protected marine region designated via Presidential Proclamations, in order to protect the ecosystem, promote scientific research, and usher in a greater public understanding of the region. The PMNM now encompasses 1,508,870 square kilometers, making it the largest protected area in the world (5). This area is also important, because it is one of three UNESCO World Heritage sites within the United States of America. UNESCO, or the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, determines landmarks with exceptional cultural, historical, or scientific significance (6). Once a site is recognized as a World Heritage site, it is legally protected by international treaties. Since its formation in 2005, the World Heritage Marine Programme has designated 49 World Heritage Marine sites spanning 36 countries, including well-known regions such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands (6). The future for marine conservation looks a bit brighter thanks to the efforts of the UNESCO World Heritage Programme. Their goal is to conserve 10% of 80

all coastal and marine areas, “especially those of high importance to biodiversity and ecosystem services [that are] required to be conserved through effective, equitable management that includes area-based conservation measures that are integrated into the wider seascape” (7). The 49 sites currently protected make up approximately 20% of all the world’s Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). MPAs indicate any clearly defined marine area that is dedicated and managed with the intention of achieving long-term conservation (8). The World Heritage Programme knows that they are in a high profile position and aim to use that to their advantage, leading by example to raise the bar on management efficacy. Seeing this sort of enthusiasm to take the reins and show others that well- managed conservation is within reach offers hope for a healthier environment in the future. In their 2016 Best Practice Guide, the World Heritage Marine Programme stated that they hoped to “spur thinking and inform practice in MPA management worldwide” (8). This thinking is essential because MPAs serve as very important havens for the flora and fauna residing in our oceans, which in turn, benefit humans by replenishing fish populations targeted by the global fishing industry. MPAs are generally put into place for two primary reasons: nature conservation and/or fisheries management. The U.S. has more than 1,600 MPAs in place currently, though the severity of management varies depending on the area (9). Size, shape, and regulations applied to the region are tailored for each individual MPA. The primary concern for these protected regions is to help maintain the biodiversity of the designated area. For example, even though they only take up 1% of the seafloor, reefs are home to more than 25% of all marine organisms (10). This is an invaluable area for the health of the overall ecosystem. Often, these MPAs—particularly coral reef ecosystems—provide not only habitat for the organisms but coastal protection, food, employment opportunities for the local community, and possible medicinal sources (11). Coral reefs are some of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Acidification of the oceans, paired with increasing water temperatures, has taken a devastating toll on the coral reefs worldwide.

Ocean Acidification In the time spanning between 2000 and 2007, the world’s oceans absorbed approximately 25% of all the carbon dioxide emitted via human activities (12). The oceans are, in fact, the world’s largest and most reliable carbon sink. Unfortunately, in the process of scrubbing away our pollution, the carbon dioxide solubilized by the oceans waters is transformed into carbonic acid (H2CO3), which in turn dissociates into H+ ions and bicarbonate (HCO3-). The organisms responsible for the majority of CO2 absorption range from plankton and bacteria to seagrasses and mangroves (13). The acidification hinders the calcification of marine organisms such as zooplankton and corals, which depend on a calcareous outer shell for protection and structure. Zooplankton and corals are vital to the health of worldwide ecosystems; Zooplankton make up a very important biomass at the base of the food web, while coral reefs provide habitat for a wide variety of marine plants and animals. 81

Corals are extra sensitive to water changes because of their symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae, a photosynthetic algae that inhabits the coral and in turn provides food for the coral. During periods of stress, such as high temperatures or increased acidity, the zooxanthellae is expelled from the corals, leaving the corals without a means of acquiring nutrients; a process known as “bleaching” (14). Without the zooxanthellae, the coral cannot sustain the diverse ecosystem usually associated with coral reefs. Patricio Bernal, Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, stated that “each day we are essentially dumping 25 million tons of carbon into the ocean.” This level of carbon absorption is unsustainable and will result in irreversible damage to these living habitats if not addressed by the international community. A paper published by Silverman, et al in 2009 indicated that coral reefs could actually shift from a net growth to net dissolution before the end of this century if the current warming and acidification trends continue as predicted (15). If no mitigation efforts are made and global carbon emissions remain unchecked, projections show that by 2050, the world’s oceans could reach pH levels more extreme than at any time in the previous 20 million years (16). To better understand this phenomenon and how to best mitigate the effects, more research is needed. In 2015, two separate assessments found human populations at risk of losing their livelihoods to acidification. At COP21 in 2015, a change in “ocean chemistry” was identified as a dangerous consequence that requires urgent action (4). This kind of language and action breathes new life into the emissions reduction and marine conservation efforts that have been desperately needed for years. Presently, there is no surefire way to reverse the acidification, but decreasing the carbon emissions is a big step to mitigate further damage of marine ecosystems.

The Future of Marine Protected Areas In 2011, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) released a publication bringing attention to how the matter of acidification is overlooked during policy discussions within the UNFCCC. Although bringing this issue forward did not elicit an immediate response from policymakers, funding for research focusing on the issue has gained momentum. In recent years, countless studies have been done to determine the most effective way to set up MPAs to maximize conservation efforts. With the leadership of the World Heritage Marine Programme and more backing from the UNFCCC, the potential for progress is better than ever. In an ideal situation, 20–30% of all different habitat types should be included in MPAs in order to preserve biodiversity and ecological functions (11, 17). Some of these habitats include coral reefs, seagrass beds, nursery spawning grounds, areas with high rates of endemism, and mangrove communities (11, 18). The idea is that as habitat diversity and complexity increase, so does species diversity, ultimately achieving a greater conservation of biodiversity (11, 19). In addition to protecting various communities of marine organisms, developing these MPAs has the potential to aid the structure of coastlines. Mangrove communities provide much-needed 82

structure to their environments, preventing erosion and offering a buffer in severe weather events. Protecting these mangroves, in turn, protects the coastal residents.

Marine Protected Areas and Overfishing While it may seem paradoxical that the fishing community would benefit from creating protected reserves, it is possible. By giving the fish a safe place to spawn and grow, the population increases and creates a “spillover” effect. This occurs when the population is so robust that some of the individuals are pushed out of the MPA and into fishing grounds. By the time the fishermen gain access to fish, their prey are of a higher quality than would be found among stressed and overfished stock. It also allows for a more diverse spectrum of fish, balancing out the fishing pressures so that one stock is not continually targeted and therefore overfished. While the seas seem full of fish, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), recently reported that more than 70% of the world’s fisheries range from “fully exploited” to “significantly depleted” (20). In 2014, the collective fishing industries of the world harvested 93,445,234 tonnes of fish from the wild populations in the oceans (21). In 2004, one in every five people in the world relied on fish for their main source of nutrients, specifically protein (22). Since 2004, the fishing industry has only increased, especially in Asia, where more than 1 billion people depend on fish for their diet (22). Developing countries are responsible for more than 60% of the internationally traded seafood products (23). These areas often do not have strictly enforced fishing regulations, which allows local fishermen to easily overfish the populations without penalty. Supply and demand economics works against these small-scale fishermen all too often, encouraging them to catch more fish than is sustainable even when they know what they are doing is detrimental to the environment. As the market grows, the price per fish decreases, requiring higher fishing yields to reach the same profit. Fishermen who rely on their catch to support their family overfish simply to pay their bills and make ends meet. However, in addition to these paycheck-to-paycheck fishermen, large-scale international fishing fleets also exploit these poorly managed areas, creating a tricky situation for the governing bodies to determine fair and balanced fishing regulations. Often in the fising industry, the monetary value of continuing to seek out fish already deemed unsustainable is greater than the perceived danger to the stock. For example, the Bluefin tuna is currently one of the most sought after fish in the ocean. In 2013, the Pacific Bluefin tuna stock was assessed, determining that the stock has experienced a 96.4% decline since the fish was first targeted in 1970 (24). Even with the knowledge that the population is only 3.6% of the original stock, fishing continues; the selling price is just too attractive. A single Bluefin tuna caught off the northeast coast of Japan was sold to a buyer in Tokyo for the equivalent of U.S. $1.76 million in 2009 (25). Prior to 1970, the commercial price of this fish was U.S. $0.05 per pound, but with the boom of the sushi market, the prices have skyrocketed (26). Between 1970 and 1990, the price for tuna increased 83

10,000 fold (26). Implementing strict fishing regulations in order to protect these populations is nearly impossible with such a profitable subject.

Best Defense Against Climate Change? Management Why spend so much time and effort discussing overfishing in a climate science-based publication? It is because strict fisheries management is, in fact, the best way to combat the effects of climate change on the fish populations. With so many factors, including, but not limited to, sea temperature increase, acidification, stratification, changing currents, changing food web biomasses, regime changes, and habitat shifts, the future of the marine environment is extremely difficult to predict in the long term. The best way to conserve marine biodiversity and support world fishing demand is to take care of the stocks that are currently on the planet. Like any organism, when stressed, these fish are less resilient to environmental changes when external pressures such as unsustainable fishing practices are applied. Overfishing contributes to reducing populations by physically removing individuals, but this action also affects the remaining population by stressing the fish, reducing the age structure of the population, eliminating the surplus production, and reducing the geographic distribution of the population (27, 28). Put all of those attributes together, and the population is suddenly unable to recover from environmental changes they would easily have adapted to previously. Effective management on every level, from international policy to local government initiatives, is the best way forward. Education can also play a major role, helping to steer the general public away from high-risk products, such as Bluefin tuna, to more sustainable but equally tasty alternatives, such as Albacore tuna.

International Cooperation for Conservation Bluefin tuna is a great example of a fish that is in trouble and requires international conservation cooperation. These animals are highly migratory and currently listed as an endangered species. Typically, highly migratory species have biological and ecological factors that lead them across what we determine to be legal boundaries separating the waters of various nations (24). Their journey through different zones makes them more susceptible to fishing pressures due to the fact that each nation manages their waters with varying levels of severity. While they may be safe in one region, this does not mean that the same standard is upheld in the waters that they traverse the next day. In order to combat the decline of Atlantic tuna, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was formed in 1969. The ICCAT consists of 50 countries, all of which began enforcing catch limits starting in 1998 (29). The work being done by this group inspires hope for the future of Atlantic tuna. They have limited total allowable catch quotas with the intention of rebuilding the stock by 2022 (29). Given that these fish are highly migratory, collecting accurate data is admittedly difficult, but even with that margin of error, the tuna populations are showing 84

positive growth and are on their way to achieving the 2022 goal. This successful cooperation offers high hopes for international partnership to combat global issues pertaining to our oceans.

Sea Level Rise Mitigating the effects of fishing and climate change on these marine environments is essential to the survival of not only the fish, but also the people depending upon them for their livelihood. Struggling economies resulting from declining fishing stocks are unfortunately not our only concern; loss of coastline due to the inundation of water is a compounding factor in the plight of coastal communities. Anthropogenic emissions have overwhelmed the buffering system of the oceans and have begun increasing the volume of these bodies of water through melting of the polar ice sheets and thermal expansion of the water. Though it is the most commonly known source of sea level rise, the melting of polar ice is only responsible for one-fifth of the global increase since 1992 (30). Thermal expansion is related to the density of water; cold seawater has the greatest density while warm freshwater has the least density. As the oceans absorb heat, the density decreases leading to an increase in the volume of the water. This expansion is the driving force behind the majority of the current and future sea level rise. After years of careless air pollution, we have inadvertently triggered a positive feedback loop pertaining to sea level rise. Much like the way oceans offer a buffer for CO2 and heat, the ice caps helped safeguard our planet from solar radiation. The bright white of the ice and snow reflects incoming solar radiation, relying on the albedo effect (31). Warmer temperatures result in increased ice melt and decreased coverage of this highly reflective region, resulting in more solar energy absorbed by the Earth, resulting in warmer temperatures, and so on. At the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in September 2016, Dr. Charles Fletcher, a professor at the University of Hawaii, stated the simple reality of the sea level situation: “If you wage war with water, you will lose, and this tells us that we must yield and elevate” (32).

Implications of Sea Level Rise Worldwide, approximately 40% of all people live within 100 kilometers of a coastline (33). The current projection has sea level increasing by more than one meter worldwide by the year 2100 (34). That sort of rise puts an overwhelmingly large number of people in jeopardy. While one meter may not seem very alarming, it should be noted that 10 percent of the world’s population lives in coastal zones with less than ten meters elevation (34). That’s more than 700 million people potentially displaced within the next 80 years. The loss of habitable land and cost of relocation have been projected to cost up to 9.3% of the global GDP annually (35). Within the past few years, sea level rise has crossed over from being a dreaded theoretical future to a very real problem that requires immediate action. While Kevin Costner will never have to reprise his lead role in Waterworld to survive 85

the rise, loss of coastline is predicted to be very significant. In the U.S. alone, 150 million Americans are living on land that will be submerged or exposed to chronic flooding by the year 2100 (36). Predictions, no matter how accurate and well researched, can often be dismissed or scoffed at, however real loss of habitable land is hard to argue. Some of the first victims include the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands, and unexpectedly, a small community in Northwest Alaska named Kivalina. In the Solomon Islands, five uninhabited islands have disappeared, and two inhabited islands have had entire villages washed into the sea, requiring the relocation of all the villagers (37). The Marshall Islands have been suffering extreme inundation for years, as most of the 1,000 islands are only approximately six feet above sea level (38). While climate policy is being discussed, debated, revised, voted upon, and then possibly ratified, the Marshallese are dealing with the loss of their homes every day. As the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony deBrum, frankly stated “It does not make sense for us to go to [climate conferences] and come back with something that says “In a few years’ time, your country is going to be underwater”...We see the damage occurring now. We’re trying to beat back the sea.” (38). Colder climates are not immune to the land loss, either. Sea level rise in Northwest Alaska, along with accelerated permafrost melt, has resulted in villages falling into the sea. The Kivalina whaling community recently voted to relocate due to the danger of their village being lost to the sea, but they are facing problems finding the funds to make the move. “There’s no government agency that has the responsibility to relocate a community, nor the funding to do it.” says Robin Bronen, the Director of the Alaska Immigration Justice Project (39). The governments of the world have not anticipated this inevitable issue, and it is something that needs to be addressed on the national and global scale as soon as possible. The roadmap for Global Climate Action has laid out a plan for helping small island developing states (SIDS), that are likely to suffer the most from loss of coastline. Classic strategies such as mitigation and adaptation are outlined within the roadmap, but it goes beyond that with plans of how to assist SIDS for 183 different countries when their homes are inevitably inundated with seawater. Determining contingencies for climate-induced refugees and migrants requires international cooperation. Climate change does not respect national boundaries and cannot be treated as if it does. The roadmap also instructs that these SIDS should receive assistance in the form of “knowledge, tools, and scientific and political expertise to implement mitigation and adaptation measures, develop adaptive management capacity, early warning systems, and disaster risk reduction, and...share knowledge among all countries.” (40). All countries, no matter the size, need to have the capability to counter climate change.

Conclusion Greater awareness for the oceans’ importance in the process of climate change is essential as we move forward. Recognition, education, and conservation are all stepping stones to reaching an all-encompassing and effective climate 86

policy. The ratification of the Paris Agreement is a great indicator that the worldwide mentality towards climate change is shifting. Instead of continuously being on the back burner, this issue is finally being taken seriously. Not only are the most prominent governing bodies setting goals for themselves, they are acknowledging the importance of smaller players at the table who do not always have representation, such as SIDS and even the marine ecosystems. A line in the most recent IUCN publication pointedly summarizes how we, as a world, have treated the Earth’s oceans. It states “we perhaps haven’t realized the gross effect we are having on the oceans, we don’t appreciate what they do for us” (40), but I believe that we are making progress. The recent agreements, treaties, and roadmaps show that our understanding and appreciation for these bodies of water are growing, and with that, so is the possibility for a better tomorrow. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this chapter are not necessarily the views of the author’s current place of employment.

References Debenedetti, P. G.; Stanley, H. E. Supercooled and Glassy Water. Physics Today 2003, 56, 40. 2. Mora, C.; Tittensor, D. P.; Adl, S.; Simpson, A. G. B.; Worm, B. How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biology 2011, 9, 8. 3. IUCN. Global Warning: Ocean Warming. https://www.iucn.org/news/global warning-ocean-warming (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 4. UNFCCC. Submission from the International Coastal and Ocean Organizations (Secretariat of the Global Ocean Forum) on the Road Map for Global Climate Action. https://unfccc.int/files/parties_observers/ submissions_from_observers/application/pdf/647.pdf (accessed Aug. 16, 2016). 5. UNESCO. UNESCO Director-General Welcomes Creation of World’s Largest Marine Protected Area. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1546/ (accessed Aug. 20, 2016). 6. WHC. The World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/ convention/ (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). 7. World Heritage Marine Sites. Managing Effectively the World’s Most Iconic Marine Protect Areas: Best Practice Guide. http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/ 1300/ (accessed Aug. 17, 2016). 8. IUCN. Establishing Resilient Marine Protected Area Networks−Making It Happen. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ mpanetworksmakingithappen_en.pdf (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). 9. National Ocean Service. Marine Protected Areas. http:// oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/mpa/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 10. Coral Reef Alliance. Coral Reef Biodiversity. http://coral.org/coral-reefs101/coral-reef-ecology/coral-reefbiodiversity/ (accessed Aug. 28, 2016). 11. McLeod, E.; Salm, R.; Green, A.; Almany, J. Designing Marine Protected Area Networks To Address the Impacts of Climate Change. Front Ecol Environ. 2009, 7, 362–370. 1.

87

12. UNFCCC. At the Frontlines of Climate Change−Oceans, Coasts, and Small Island Developing States: The Need for Action Now in the Climate Negotiations.http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/ngo/156.pdf (accessed Aug. 12, 2016). 13. Hutchison, J.; Manica, A.; Swetnam, R.; Balmford, A.; Spalding, M. Predicting Global Patterns in Mangrove Forest Biomass. Conservation Letters 2013, 7, 233–240. 14. Brown, B. E. Coral Bleaching: Causes and Consequences. Coral Reefs 1997, 16, 129–138. 15. Silverman, J.; Lazar, B.; Cao, L.; Caldeira, K.; Erez, J. Coral Reefs May Start Dissolving When Atmospheric CO2 Doubles. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36 (5). 16. Turley, C. M.; Roberts, J. M.; Guinotte, J. M. Corals in Deep-Water: Will the Unseen Hand of Ocean Acidification Destroy Cold-Water Ecosystems? Coral Reefs 2007, 26, 445–448. 17. Day J.; Fernandes L.; Lewis A.; De’ath G.; Slegers, S.; Barnett, B.; Kerrigan, B.; Breen, D.; Innes, J.; Oliver, J.; Ward, T.; Lowe, D. The Representative Areas Program for Protecting the Biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium; Kasim Moosa M. K., Soemodihardjo S., Nontji A.; Eds.; Oct 23–27, 2000, Bali, Indonesia, The World Fish Center: Penang, Malaysia. 18. Sadovy, Y. Protecting the Spawning and Nursery Habitats of Fish: The Use of MPAs to Safeguard Critical Life-History Stages for Marine Life. MPA News 2006, 8, 1–3. 19. Carr, M. H.; Neigel, J. E.; Estes, J. A.; Andelman, S.; Warner, R. R.; Largier, J. L. Comparing Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Implications for the Design of Coastal Marine Reserves. Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, S90–S107. 20. United Nations. Resumed Review Conference on the Agreement Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. http://www.un.org/depts/los/ convention_agreements/reviewconf/FishStocks_EN_A.pdf (accessed Aug. 25, 2015). 21. FAO. World Capture Production Statistic. http://www.fao.org/fishery/static/ Yearbook/YB2014_CD_Master/root/capture/a1a.pdf (accessed Aug. 26, 2016). 22. Diwan, A. D. Marine Biodiversity for Livelihood and Food Security. Indian Farming 2004, 54, 47–50. 23. Jones E. The Environmental and Socioeconomic Effects of Overfishing Due to the Globalization of the Seafood Industry. COLLST-499: Contemporary Perspectives Seminar. http://www.philau.edu/collegestudies/Documents/ Elizabeth%20Jones.pdf (accessed 2016). 24. Pew Charitable Trusts. New Scientific Report Shows Pacific Bluefin Tuna Population Down 96.4%. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/imported-old/otherresources/2013/01/09/new-scientific-report-showspacific-bluefin-tunapopulation-down-964 (accessed Aug. 29, 2016). 25. ABC7. Bluefin Tuna Sells for Record $1.76 Million. http://abc7ny.com/ archive/8944585/ (accessed Aug. 17, 2016). 88

26. The Atlantic. Sushinomics: How Bluefin Tuna Became a Million-Dollar Fish. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/ngo/156.pdf (accessed Aug. 25, 2016). 27. Brander, K. M. Cod Recruitment Is Strongly Affected by Climate When Stock Biomass Is Low. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2005, 62, 339–343. 28. Brander, K. Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries. J. Mar. Syst. 2010, 79, 389–402. 29. ICCAT. Contracting Parties. https://www.iccat.int/en/contracting.htm (accessed Aug. 19, 2016). 30. Scientific American. Polar Melting Is Accelerating, So Is Sea-Level Rise. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-melting-is-accelera/ (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 31. NOAA. What Are Positive Feedbacks? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ abrupt/story2.html (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 32. KHON2. World Conservation Congress Addresses Severity of Climate Change, Rising Sea Levels. http://khon2.com/2016/09/05/worldconservation-congress-addresses-severity-of-climate-change-rising-sealevels/ (accessed Sept. 5, 2016). 33. UNFCCC. 2014 Human Development Report Climate Change, A Critical Challenge. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/2014-humandevelopment-report-climate-change-a-critical-challenge/ (accessed Aug. 20, 2016). 34. Nicholls, R. J; Cazenave, A. Sea-Level Rise and Its Impacts on Coastal Zones. Science 2010, 328, 1517–1520. 35. Gattuso, J. P.; Magnan, A.; Bille, R.; Cheung, W. W. L.; Howes, E. L.; Joos, F.; Allemand, D.; Bopp, L.; Cooley, S. R.; Eakin, C. M.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Kelly, R. P.; Portner, H. O.; Rogers, A. D.; Baxter, J. M.; Laffoley, D.; Osborn, D.; Rankovic, A.; Rochette, J.; Sumaila, U. R.; Treyer, S.; Turley, C. Contrasting Futures for Ocean and Society from Different Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Scenarios. Science 2015, 349. 36. Climate Central. Sea Levels Could Rise At Least 20 Feet. http:// www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211 (accessed Aug. 15, 2016). 37. Guardian. Five Pacific Islands Lost to Rising Seas as Climate Change Hits. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacificislands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change (accessed Aug. 16, 2016). 38. New York Times. The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing. http:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-IslandsAre-Disappearing.html (accessed Aug. 7, 2016). 39. Washington Post. The Remote Alaskan Village That Needs to Be Relocated Due to Climate Change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energyenvironment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-berelocated-due-to-climate-change/?utm_term=.2fb9c54e57d3 (accessed Aug. 10, 2016). 40. IUCN. State of Conservation Reports 2016. https://www.iucn.org/worldheritage-committee/iucn-world-heritage-40com/iucn-recommendations/ state-conservation-reports (accessed Sept. 5, 2016). 89

Chapter 7

Climate Change, Protests, and Youth Movements: The Personal Side of Policy Nina D. Diklich* Chemistry Department, Aquinas College, 1607 Robinson Road SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

With the importance of action on climate change mounting, there has been an increasing urgency in the way people from around the world have responded to implemented policies. From public marches, to works of art, protests, and public education, the responses have been considerably varied. With no formal representation in government, the youth and students of the world turn to alternative forms of expression, pouring their frustrations and aspirations into artwork, organized movements, and protests. Using the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 20th and 21st Conference of Parties (COP) as a backdrop, this collection of personal stories and selected examples aim to shed light on the personal side of policy. The focus is how real people, specifically youth, and various organizations respond to the negotiations via conversations, communication efforts, artistic expressions, or modes of protest.

Introduction With the importance of action on climate change mounting, there has been an increasing urgency in the way people from around the world have responded to implemented policies. From public marches, to works of art, protests, and public education, the responses have been considerably varied. As people fear their cries of injustice are falling on deaf ears, the importance of public movements and demonstrations grows. This is especially true with the youth of the world. With no representation in formal governments and very little input via official channels, © 2017 American Chemical Society

their voice constantly gets lost amid the crowd. These conditions often lead youth and students to alternative forms of expression, pouring their frustrations, aspirations, or dreams into artwork, organized movements, and protests. As a student delegate to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 20th and 21st Conference of Parties (COP), I was constantly trying to find and establish my voice among the masses of people. Regardless of the policy triumphs or disappointments of the day, I found myself finding refuge and strength with the other students and the youth of the world. Behind the rhetoric of the negotiations were real people demanding real change for a real future. This collection of personal stories and selected examples aim to shed light on the personal side of policy by focusing on how real people – specifiacally youth – and various organizations respond to the negotiations via conversations, communication efforts, artistic expressions, or modes of protest.

International Youth Movements Walking into the negotiations for the first time is an overwhelming experience. Swarming with people, both COPs I attended were teeming with a nervous but hopeful buzz. With people gathering from different parts of the globe, there was a sense of oneness and unity despite the difference in customs and languages. This was particularly true with other youth and student groups from around the world. Excited with the prospect of change, other students were receptive and open to extensive discussion and debates. After meeting with students from Scotland, Brazil, the Netherlands, and China, it was apparent how engaged and dedicated the youth were to combatting climate change. The youth today are the first generation to truly feel and experience the adverse impacts of climate change. UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon acknowledged that they are “the last generation that can put an end to climate change” (1). Some student groups hosted symposiums or events at the negotiations to draw attention to their experiences and elevate their voices. One particularly moving and eloquent group was the 2050 Climate Group, which I had the chance to attend while at COP21. As Scotland’s Youth Climate Group, they aim to instigate a social movement by empowering young leaders to take action (2). Mostly made up of young professionals, the group believes that education and public engagement are crucial elements in establishing a low-carbon future (2). Interestingly enough, the 2050 Climate Group truly believes in youth being the leaders inspiring and catalyzing transformation change. They began by educating and initiating a few leaders. The plans after that include further investing in those young leaders, but replicating the process with more students. The tiered network grows year by year to produce a full system of young leaders linked across the country. Fundamental to this system is the idea that it’s easier for students to change the world, because they don’t need to maintain an established status quo. By thinking outside the box and creating a new grid of support, the 2050 Climate Group establishes a forward-thinking, working model that emphasizes the role and importance of youth (2). 92

Another vocal student group throughout the COP was from Brazil. While sitting in another symposium put on by a collection of youth groups, some Brazilian students took the stage with a brazen idea. They claimed many of the youth in their country were not interested in climate change, because the topic was boring. However, through an unorthodox approach, they managed to get the whole room giggling. Their simple solution: make climate change sexy. They had “climate change is sexy” plastered on their presentation, t-shirts, and even lanyards. By getting people talking about the topic, they aimed to educate their peers and demonstrate the importance. Despite the strange approach, the image and the rhetoric are still with me long after the encounter. It was so creative, and they really challenged everyone in the room to approach education about the adverse effects of climate change in an engaging and interesting way. More than anything else, the student and youth groups were welcoming and active at the negotiations. Open to conversations and debates, youth from around the world congregated and formed a unified presence at the conference. Although only two groups were highlighted here, there were many more brought new perspectives to the topics and new ideas as to how to promote education about climate change.

Public Engagement The United Nations negotiations are more than just government officials debating the language of treaties. These negotiations serve as a forum for people from around the world to converge to debate, discuss, and educate. Different from in previous years, COP21 in Paris had a Climate Generation Area, or “Green Zone,” for citizens and organizations to converge and promote learning and dialogue. Many organizations did more than simply give talks, they hosted interactive exhibits and activities. These exhibits challenged the everyday person to reflect on their daily habits and consider changing aspects of their lifestyle. At first glance, public engagement may not seem particularly important or relevant to the rest of this section; however, these simple tasks fully engaged the public and promoted learning and education in a different way. Many of these examples were instrumental in challenging convention and were a vital avenue for real people to interact with climate chang-based organizations. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average annual electricity consumption for a US residential utility customer was 10,932 kWh with an average of 911 kWh per month in 2015 (3). For the average person, cutting back and limiting energy consumption is one of the easiest, most realistic changes. With this in mind, a few different organizations at COP21 in Paris decided to show just how much energy it takes to do everyday things using bicycles. In the Green Zone, there was always a snaking line of people waiting to pedale pour le jus, or pedal for juice (Figure 1). The Juice Energy Bar had stationary bikes hooked up to juicers, so people could see how much energy it required to make a simple glass of juice. After vigorously pedaling for 45 seconds, enough power 93

(about 130 watts) was produced to generate a small glass of carrot, apple, and beat juice (4). This was, surprisingly, more difficult than it sounds. Similarly, a group called “Solar Sound Systems” had people pedaling across COP21. There were stations set up across the venue where people could pedal bikes to generate the power for their cell phones (Figure 2). This same group also used pedaling to power a DJ booth (5).

Figure 1. Fellow student delegate from the American Chemical Society pedaling to generate a refreshing glass of juice. Other public movements focused on education via interactive presentations, such as “Fossil of the Day,” put on by the Climate Action Network (CAN). This satirical award is based on the premise that public humiliation is a powerful force in saving the planet. The ceremony takes place at the end of each day with a rowdy group of journalists, fans, and curious passersby crowding around a banner of the Jurassic Park dinosaur with flames coming out of its mouth and a simple podium (Figure 3). To begin the ceremony, the crowd sings the Fossil of the Day theme song, set to the Jurassic theme music. From there, a Master of Ceremonies, dressed in a fossil suit, humorously presents the infamous award – a trophy full of coal – to the “most obstructionist” country of the day; Canada, Japan, Australia, and the United States were frequent recipients. This award ceremony adds excitement and humor to the negotiation process, which can be monotonous and long. It also is a crucial opportunity for activists to bring attention to nations that are thwarting the negotiation process – they can reform lest they risk further embarrassment (6). Although this may seem silly, this display was consistently one of my favorite parts of the negotiations. It not only made me laugh at the sheer outrageousness 94

of the whole thing, but it also made me think. The show challenges its audience to demand action from the nations pushing for an unfair agreement. By bringing the media and activists together, Fossil of the Day was a critical opportunity for the public to engage and learn about the negotiations in a fun and unique way. Global companies also had interactive exhibits at the negotiations to educate and engage the public in meaningful conversations about climate change. Google erected an immersive and interactive display of screens in the middle of the Green Zone, or community zone at COP21 (Figure 4). Over the two weeks of negotiations, these screens had about 70 presentations from nonprofits, ranging from rising sea levels by Climate Central, bleaching of coral from Underwater Earth, deforestation from Global Forest Watch, and the current state of climate change by Climate Reality (7).

Figure 2. Conference attendees use the stationary bikes to charge their cellphones.

95

Each day as I walked through the conference, this was the spot where I was most likely to lose track of time. One of the first days of the negotiations, I happened to be walking by when a group called Climate Central was demonstrating its Mapping Choices interactive tool. Found online at http://sealevel.climatecentral.org, it allows users to view the consequences of both a 2°C and a 4°C increase in temperature in cities around the globe. Images were created by visual artists Nickolay Lamm to help the audience understand what exactly sea level rising looked like in Durban, London, Mumbai, New York City, Rio, Washington D.C., and many more (8). It was completely jarring and shocking to see the Washington Monument and the White House submerged under water. It stuck with me long after the conference and had me going back to their website days, weeks, and months later. It was important for me to visualize how my decisions could affect my future and my country.

Figure 3. Fossil of the Day ceremony at COP20 in Lima, Peru.

Ikea took a different approach by placing ‘interactive exhibits’ along the streets of Paris. During the negotiations, Ikea transformed the Champs Elysees, one of the most famous streets in the world, by placing bikes, swings, and even hamster-type wheels to generate clean energy used to light up the street (Figure 5). Ikea partnered with the Nicolas Hulot Foundation and ADEME to produce 100% renewable energy for illuminating the street by also constructing a wind turbine (9). When in Paris for the negotiations, I was stunned and impressed by how many people I saw running, swinging, and pedaling along the Champs Elysees. The other ACS delegates and I even waited in line for our turn on the 96

devices to help generate energy. It was a fun and engaging way to get everyday citizens involved with the negotiations. Interactive exhibits at the conference and around Paris educated the public through action and conversation. These activities, whether they were bike-powered energy, mock awards ceremonies, or digital renderings, challenged the community in unique ways to reconsider their actions. Despite making up very little of the overall conversation, these interactive exhibits represent some of my most vivid memories and important experiences while at the COPs. They made me think about my actions in new ways and enabled me to experience the reality of climate change in an immersive method. Collectively, these interactive methods were one of the vital ways activists and community members came together at the conference to affect change outside of the formal negotiations.

Figure 4. The interactive and imaginative Google Portal at COP21, which hosted dynamic visual presentations about climate change in the Green Zone.

97

Figure 5. An ACS student delegate runs on an Ikea sponsored wheel to generate energy to power the lights along the Champs Elysees in Paris.

Artistic Expression Around the streets, the metro, and the conference venue, COP21 was bursting with artistic expression. These pictures, sculptures, and interactive installations gave the viewer a glimpse into the feelings, emotions, and opinions of the artist on climate change. More than any other experience at the negotiations, the artwork was extremely moving through its deep personal connections. As I wandered the streets of Paris, and through both COP20 and COP21 venues, the artwork served multiple purposes: the pain and suffering associated with climate change resonated with me. The unique materials challenged me to look at my consumption and waste in a new way. The interactive exhibits allowed me to become a part of the movement in a way I had never experienced. The educational pieces helped me learn and understand climate change around the globe. Collectively, the artistic expression associated with the negotiations showed how real people from around 98

the world felt about climate change, and it was a powerful opportunity for artists to share these feelings on a large scale. The most whimsical art around the conference utilized unique materials to construct stunning and unexpected displays (Figure 6). Artists used bottle caps like those found on water bottles and milk jugs to create a wall full of blooming flowers and climbing greenery. Similarly, another artist used the bottom of soda bottles to create poppies blossoming up from the ground of the conference. More than just being beautiful, art using non-traditional materials challenged the viewer to reconsider the definition of waste.

Figure 6. Both from COP21 in Paris, France, these pieces of art displayed non-traditional materials to challenge the definition of waste. Other art at the conference focused on explicitly educating viewers through humor and shock. One artist used digital editing to create images of himself learning easy ways to be more sustainable, such as eating local food, turning off lights when not in use, and turning off the tap while brushing his teeth. By using images of him teaching himself better habits, the artist garnered grins from his audience. However, it was through this humor that the artist was able to make a lasting impression on the viewer and encourage altered greener behaviors. A different artist took an altered approach to educating his viewers by trying to accurately depict how climate change affected those around the world differently. By showing famine, flooding, droughts, deforestation, and other relevant climate change topics, the artist allowed viewers an intimate look at how climate change can destroy lives. It is important for many living in developed nations to witness the devastation that climate change can bring to many living around the world. When international travel to remote locations is not possible, photography provides that essential glimpse into the reality of climate change. 99

Various artists created interactive art installations in the conference Green Zone. After walking through security, the first thing I would see as I walked in each morning was a tree constructed out of plywood. Conference-goers posted small sheets on the tree, which looked somewhat like leaves (Figure 7, left). On these pieces of paper, people wrote their hopes for the conference, their fears for the future, famous quotes, or their feelings about the negotiations. What was truly remarkable about this installation was the community it fostered within the building. People would comment on others’ notes with words of encouragement or agreement, which brought the tree to life in its own way. A similar art installation also in the Green Zone had people writing their hopes for the negotiations on ribbons, which were then tied to a smaller tree (Figure 7, right). With similar sentiments, these exhibits brought people together regardless of language or culture to voice their thoughts and emotions surrounding climate change.

Figure 7. Interactive art installations from COP21 in Paris, France. Despite the many pieces of art I was able to see at both COP20 and COP21, one piece stands out more than any other. At COP20 in Lima, Peru, there was a massive white wall in the center of the venue. One day, we arrived and someone was standing out in the beating sun painting a mural in black (Figure 8, left). The next day, markers were left out for the conference goers to write their hopes for the future, thoughts on climate change, or other relevant emotions. Each day our group passed it on our way out, thinking about what to write. On our final way out of the negotiations, we stopped and took turns writing our hopes on the board (Figure 8, right). It was a moment of serious reflection for me and the rest of the group as we tried to condense all of our feelings into few words. I will never forget Dr. Peterman, one of the mentors for the ACS student project, who walked up to the board and wrote something along the lines of “I’m sorry, Opa.” Dr. Peterman used the board as an open apology to his grandchildren, 100

an open apology for the mistakes of his generation that will impact theirs. I found myself tearing up in that moment as I found myself thinking of my actions and how my decisions will influence the world of my children, grandchildren, and others. This is the power of art on the public. It has the opportunity to elicit strong emotional connections with the viewers and alter their thinking and even their behavior. It is more than just one person’s feelings. It is a connection between people and serves as the common language between those fighting against climate change.

Figure 8. An interactive art installation located at the heart of the venue at COP20 in Lima, Peru.

Protests Throughout the negotiations, protests were some of the most visible and emotionally charged methods for everyday people to communicate their frustrations and aspirations. The classic maxim there is strength is numbers is especially true with climate change protests. Between the two COPs I attended, there were more than just organized marches, there were also protests that mobilized in real time as people reacted to the decisions being made around them. During COP20, the Global Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Institute hosted a side-event initially entitled “Why Divest from Fossil Fuels When a Future with Low Emission Fossil Energy Use is Already a Reality?” The event featured speakers from Shell, the World Coal Association, and Lord Nicholas Stern; 101

additionally, it was hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association and sponsored by Chevron. Activists around the conference and around the globe were outraged that fossil fuel companies and lobbyists were not only able to attend the negotiations, but also able to give presentations. NGOs, environmental activist groups, and representatives from indigenous communities in Colombia, Peru, and Canada spoke out against the event and called for these lobbyists to be banned from UN Climate Talks. Youth activists also stormed in and quickly overwhelmed the small event room in protest (10). In a more organized event, approximately 15,000 people flooded the streets of Lima for the People’s Climate March – the largest climate march ever in South America (11). Climate activists protested nuclear plants, pollution, mining, deforestation, and a whole host of other issues. They collectively demanded 100% clean energy by 2050 and that people be put before profits (12). A similar march was planned for the Paris negotiations, however the terrorist attacks in November of 2015 forced the French government to cancel the march in order to ensure public safety. With all public marches banned, people turned to shoes in order to leave a powerful message. Instead of literally walking the streets, activists simply left their shoes in the Place de la République in silent demonstration, supporting action against climate change. Collectively, 11,000 pairs of shoes were left on the street, with pairs being left by Pope Francis, UN secretary general Ban-Ki Moon, and everyday people. Although this silent march was not the original plan, it was a deeply symbolic gesture showing the commitment of the French people as well as the world on climate issues. The shoes also served as symbols of sustainable development, suggesting that people should walk more and use cars less (13). As it took place the Sunday before the negotiations started, its peaceful yet determined nature set the tone for the conference. At the end of the conference, the French government lifted the ban on public demonstrations. Thousands of people flooded the streets of Paris, many wearing red, carrying red cloth, toting red umbrellas or red signs, symbolically becoming the “red line” they want negotiators not to cross (14, 15). Approximately 10,000 people participated in the rally at the Arc de Triomphe, peacefully coming together to demand action on climate change instead of just rhetoric (16). These two demonstrations served as bookends to the COP21 Paris negotiations. The silent march had people around the world determinedly focused on reaching a fair and legally binding agreement. The red line protest was a finishing line of sorts, with protestors urging nations not to push the globe past the edge. Through all of my experiences at the negotiations, I was most surprised to find that most protests were small and seemed to pop up out of nowhere. At both COP20 and COP21, I would be walking through common spaces to find people with bright signs, cultural displays from indigenous peoples groups, and choruses of chants demanding climate justice. These protests seemed to rise up out of the masses of people, weaving in and out of my daily experiences. Even though I was not involved in the organization or even the execution of the protests, I became a part of the movement by simply being a listener. By hearing the message and taking it to heart, the other observers and I became the support network around the protests by changing our future actions. These protests also showed the humanity 102

of the throngs of people at the conferences. Every time, it was moving to hear someone in their own voice and in their own words demand justice or promote change. It was one of the few avenues for people without an official venue, stage, or space to speak their mind and demand better from the leaders of the world.

Conclusion With the focus on policy and rhetoric surrounding climate change, it is often easy to forget about the real people who are dealing with the effects daily. With many not having official venues to express their opinions and exact change, public movements are a crucial element in how real people interact with and change their own world. At the United Nations negotiations, these public movements often took center stage as activists demanded their voices be heard. Youth movements fostered a welcoming community, offering a space for debate and conversation via events and social media. Interactive exhibits engaged people through movement, fully immersing them in the reality of climate change. Art captured the raw emotions of activists around the world by exploring the themes of climate change in a unique and thought-provoking way. Protests brought public awareness to climate change by demanding change and action. Together, these glimpses of humanity provided the framework from which the conference thrived. By giving a voice to the people of the world, public movements played a critical role in shaping negotiations and inspiring change.

References 1.

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

UN Secretary General Statements and Messages, May 28, 2015. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm16800.doc.htm (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). 2050 Scotland’s Youth Climate Group. Who We Are, 2016. http://2050.scot/ about-us/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3 (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). Nicholas, S. Institute for Sustainable Communities. Impressions from COP21, December 7, 2015. http://www.iscvt.org/impressions-from-cop21/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). UN News Centre. COP21: A ‘Green’ UN Climate Change Conference, From Electric Cars to the Power of Human Energy, December 14, 2015. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52815#.V75Fw5grK00 (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). Holthaus, E. Slate. The Fossil of the Day Award is the Best Part of the Paris Climate Summit, November 30, 2015. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/ the_fossil_of_the_day_award_wins_the_paris_climate_summit.html (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). 103

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Brandt, K. Google Green Blog. Notes from COP21, December 16, 2015. http://googlegreenblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/notes-from-cop21.html (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). Stauss, B. Climate Central. Images Show Impact of Sea Level Rise on Global Icons, November 8, 2015. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-iconsat-risk-from-sea-level-rise-pictures-19633 (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). IKEA. Ensemble pour illuminer les Champs-Elysées,November 11, 2015. http://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/about_ikea/newsitem/DP_IKEA_COP21 (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). 350. Activists Protest Outside Fossil Fuel Industry Side-event at COP20, December 8, 2014. https://350.org/press-release/activists-protest-outsidefossil-fuel-industry-side-event-at-cop20/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). Peterman, K. E. People’s Climate March in Lima Unites Citizen Voices of the Americas. Huffington Post, February 10, 2015. http:/ /www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-peterman/peoples-climate-march-in_b_6307366.html? (accessed Nov. 1, 2016). DeMelle, B. DeSmog. Lima COP20 Climate Summit Marked by Protests, Publicity Students and PR Promises, December 10, 2014. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/11/lima-cop20-climate-summitmarked-protests-promises-and-publicity-stunts (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). The Road to a Paris Climate Deal. The New York Times, November 29, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-parisclimate-talks/silent-rally-activists-shoes (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). COP21: Protesters Hold ‘Red Line’ Demo in Paris. BBC, December 12, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082289 (accessed Aug. 22, 2016). Peterman, K. E. Red Line for Climate Justice Unfurled in Paris. Huffington Post, Dec. 14, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-peterman/redline-for- climate-just_b_8793536.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2016). Inside Climate News. Photos: Thousands Protest in Paris to Urge Climate Action, December 12, 2015. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12122015/ photos-paris-cop21-climate-change-protest-red-lines (accessed Aug. 22, 2016).

104

Chapter 8

A Change in Our Climate Perspective Kaitlyn Teppert* University of Michigan, 440 Church St., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States *E-mail: [email protected].

At COP20 in Lima, Peru, there was a measurably diminished youth presence within the conference venue. This chapter focuses on the various climate justice movements seen at the COP in an effort to highlight the younger generation’s passion to see change in the best way possible, rather than the easiest way possible. In addition, this chapter examines the ways in which individuals can effectively communicate the reality and urgency of the climate issue to those who may still be uninformed. These tactics include highlighting how to appeal to a wider audience and focusing on the appeals of social media as a new stage for major climate communication efforts.

Introduction Of all the things I experienced at the 2014 20th Conference of Parties (COP20) in Lima, Peru, from eating in historical ruins, meeting an astronaut, and walking in a crypt, I have to say that the best thing was hearing several dozen tired conference attendees singing lyrics to the tune of the Jurassic Park theme. Honestly, that moment highlights why scientists and politicians aren’t usually also pop stars. But, more on that later. Every aspect of climate change and the harm it does to the environment ties back to a way it can adversely impact humanity. Sea level rise will wipe entire island nations off of the map and destroy coastal cities around the globe (1). Increased temperature means less time for crops to grow and a northern migration of species, including diseases like yellow fever (2). Every single thing that happens to our environment also happens to us. The human aspect and implications of climate change are what captured my attention and made me so passionate to join the cause. When I was selected to © 2017 American Chemical Society

represent the American Chemical Society at COP20 in Lima, Peru, I knew that it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. At first, I was intimidated when I arrived at the COP20 venue at the beginning of the second week of the conference – the week in which negotiators would finalize documents and high-ranking government representatives would arrive to approve of decisions. I could feel the pressure even though I was just a UNaccredited “Observer.” I was selected to represent the ACS national Students on Climate Change (SOCC) program (3). I would serve as the eyes and ears for students and young adults who would otherwise not know what was happening at the conference. In particular, my SOCC teammates and I would be blogging and leveraging social media platforms to engage our peers in the global stage that was COP20. I was eager for the entire experience at the conference, but I was especially interested in seeing other student groups that might be similar to ours. I wanted to see how other youths were getting engaged at the event. However, I noticed almost immediately upon walking into the venue that I was surrounded by people whom I would be unable to consider my peers; everyone around me was more than a decade my senior. Within an hour of walking around the venue, trying to get used to the setting, I felt both grateful and disheartened. I was grateful because I had the opportunity to participate in such a unique program as SOCC. I was disheartened because I could see the severe lack of representation by my age group. It didn’t make sense to me then, and it still doesn’t make sense to me now. The decision makers at the conference will likely never see the worst of the devastation that climate change will wreak on our planet. My generation—my peer group—we are the ones who will inherit the governments, the companies, the society, and the Earth that will be impacted and tested through our warming world. It was a harsh awakening to see that we weren’t represented at the negotiating table where critical decisions were being made. While it was easy to get caught up in the excitement of attending events hosting notable figures, like former Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of State John Kerry, I constantly kept an eye out for other young people (4). I spotted a few in the crowds throughout the day, but not enough to convince me that we had true representation. It made me wonder if youth were even engaged in the issues. This led me to consider: how we can better communicate climate change issues to the general public? Throughout my week at COP20, a lot happened. On the COP-exclusive shuttle bus to and from the venue, I met many professionals from around the globe, who were working in all kinds of different fields related to environmental problems. Many of them were there hosting or participating in side events that promoted their organizations’ efforts to make positive changes. I still have many of their business cards. My time in Lima was the first time I truly felt like a global citizen. Seeing so many people from far-reaching corners of the globe come together to fight against a common problem was empowering. To this day, I look back to that week and remind myself that this cause is worth fighting for, and that we are not alone in the battle. 106

While we are not alone, we are quite far from engaging everyone. Before we can expect everyone to run out and start composting or buying electric vehicles, we must improve communication of these issues so that others can understand what the problems really are.

Problems with Past Climate Communication Techniques Living in the United States and being so closely involved with environmental issues can be frustrating. Many Americans are ignorant, purposefully or not, to the real threats of climate change (5). And it’s not entirely their fault. Communication is a two-way interaction. Historically, individuals with the important information (i.e., climate scientists) have been ineffective in communicating environmental issues to the general public in the United States. Between climate models lacking understandable information and fear messaging, it is little wonder that people do not know what to make of the topic. One of the first and most widely used techniques for communicating with the general public is that of an information-based campaign (6). Essentially, the idea is that if people are simply informed of the reality of the situation, their attitudes will become more pro-environmental, and then their behaviors will follow. They will become greener citizens. This model was established in the early 1970s, but it was eventually determined to not be insufficient. These kinds of models are called information-deficit models, based on the belief that lack of information limits a person’s decision making. One of the failings of these models is that they assume people are rational decision makers, which is not always true. Many factors come into play when people make decisions. Many decision-making techniques are shortcuts to help people save mental energy and time, rather than weighing every single pro and con for all the decisions that are made during the day. These shortcuts are called heuristics. Heuristics provide a basis for many of the personal biases we all hold, which, in turn, prevent us from always being logic-based decision makers (6, 7). Another issue is often the “distance” that can be felt when talking about climate change. Although it might feel like the exact opposite to those of us who are reasonably well-versed in the literature and understand the breadth and depth of this issue, many people think of climate change as an issue for future generations or for people in far away places. For example, the iconic polar bear image on floating ice may not be as motivating to the general public as a geographically closer impact that directly affects the individual. Giving the general public a far-away image and saying “look, climate change is happening” makes them feel like it is not a pressing threat to them, so they should not be concerned about it. These kinds of images, no matter how heartrending, may end up demotivating pro-environmental behaviors (PEB) (8, 9). People have biases regarding these two distance issues, called spatial bias and temporal bias. Spatial bias comes into play when people believe that the conditions in their region or country are better than they are elsewhere, or when people believe that they are doing a better job than other people. Temporal bias, on the other hand, is a little trickier. The farther away (in time) the issue is, the less motivated 107

people feel to do something about it. This phenomenon is also called temporal discounting. This is one of the main issues in getting people to make sacrifices now for a potential gain later. If the potential gain is too far away in time, it will not feel salient to an individual, and (s)he will not be motivated to reach that goal (10). Additionally, there is fear messaging. This may be the most difficult means of communication to avoid. Fear messaging is closely tied with information deficit models and has permeated climate change communication. For example, one of the biggest and most well-known documentaries accessible to the general public is An Inconvenient Truth, which depicts a rather bleak outlook for the environment. At the heart of the issue, fear messaging often conflicts with people’s belief systems. For example, there is a significant number of people who hold a “just world” view – the idea that the world is fair, orderly, and stable. Dire fear messaging often highlights something we do not know will happen for certain, such as chaos and unpredictable catastrophe (such as extreme storms) becoming commonplace. This kind of message directly conflicts with the thoughts of those who hold the just world belief. Their heuristics and biases kick in, effectively causing them to shut down and ignore the message. This occurrence effectively negates the message and may demotivate any PEB (11). It should be noted that these are problems facing communication efforts not geared towards people who already believe in climate change. Nearly everyone gathered at COP20 was of the same mindset: climate change is happening, humans caused it, and we must do something about it now. This is why Al Gore’s COP20 presentation about recent events and findings with respect to climate change included multiple clips of people being washed out of their homes by massive floods. The fear messaging used in that presentation probably got through to a lot of people. As attendees who were climate literate, we were able to take in the information, understand what it meant, and align it with our values; the issue did not feel distant. It became salient to us that there is a problem happening now. This reoccurred numerous times throughout different break-out sessions and lectures I attended throughout the week. In order to get audience attention, intense, dire facts were thrown at us, and it was motivating. In fact, after COP20, I made even more lifestyle changes to lower my carbon footprint. Unfortunately, we are still a subset of the population, especially in the United States. These kinds of messages simply will not work in a general outreach program. So what can we do?

Neutral Messaging The political divide between the American populous is vast, which, in turn, has divided environmental attitudes. In general, political liberals are more likely to believe in climate change and partake in PEBs, while political conservatives are not. People may consider themselves to be liberal or conservative for many reasons, but part of their belief comes from their perception of morality. In general, liberals tend to care more about protecting other people and upholding 108

social justice for all populations. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor in-group loyalty, respecting authority, and preserving sanctity (12). One of the few benefits in the breadth of the climate change issue is that something in everyone’s life will be affected by climate change. Thus, there should be a way to get through to anyone regarding an environmental issue, even if it means completely avoiding the words “climate change” to sidestep a politicized term. Unfortunately, many of the messages perpetuated by the mainstream media focus mainly on framing these issues in a way that is more likely to appeal to liberals, thus furthering the polarization between the two major groups in the United States. However, all is not lost. When presented with environmental messages framed in a way that appeal to their pre-existing values, conservatives are more likely to endorse a PEB (12). It follows, then, that knowing your audience can be half the battle. To make the most effective message, you need to match your audience’s values and world views. If it seems difficult to spin some of these issues, a good way of reaching people who may not be as supportive of “climate change” or PEB is through the emphasis of co-benefits. For example, public (and personal) health concerns can be highlighted to break down barriers and help humanize the issue. In addition, the potential for economic savings (perhaps by switching to more energy-efficient appliances) or economic gain for the country (for example, if the United States was to invest in solar technology and push ahead of other countries) could be used as well. Through these means, the moral argument is still valid—especially on a local scale. Locally, opportunities lie in emphasizing preservation of a specific habitat that a person knows well and feels connected to – maybe that person goes on regular camping or fishing trips to a given location and can be encouraged to change behaviors in order to preserve it. It is important to note that not all “liberals” or “conservatives” fall into prescribed buckets, especially over time. If you are trying to reach people who may not be entirely inclined to listen in the first place, there is often a way to reach them if you avoid biased messaging or include multiple viewpoints. At COP20, for example, there were people from every part of the globe with widely different backgrounds. Though some of us were interested in climate justice, others green technology, or policy. Regardless, we all found something that made us passionate about fighting climate change.

Readable Messages Individuals are prone to make misinformed decisions if information is not presented in a way that can be understood (13). Without context, people will not know where to begin (14). As an example, simply telling someone that sea level rise will threaten coastlines without also explaining that “an island nation that currently exists will be underwater” will not give people an idea of what exactly is threatened or the severity of the threat, making the statement lose its impact (1). Sometimes climate science can become confusing and complicated, even for the experts. Imagine being a person with no background in climate science who 109

has not taken a math class in more than ten years and is shown a graph from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) annual report about projected sea level rise. The information shown is probably not going to stick. This is not a coincidence. In general, people are notoriously unskilled at dealing with numbers (15). In a study testing the ability of an analogy to help people understand what should be done to stabilize carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere, researchers ran two versions of the analogy. One presented participants with the analogy and a graphical representation of the problem, while the other presented the analogy without a graph. Even though, in theory, more information should help an individual to better understand an issue, the group presented with the graph ended up with less understanding. Considering how often we see graphs supporting the latest climate statistics, it is no surprise that people understand very little about what is really going on (15). It is important to keep in mind that, due to the concept of an attribute overload, when given too much information, an individual is likely going to mentally shut down (14). Even if a message is long, it should be broken up into shorter sections to help the recipient digest everything that is being presented.

Promote Self-Efficacy: Yes I Can! Self-efficacy is an individual’s perception of her or his ability to accomplish a task, or a feeling of empowerment. It plays a major role in the difference between whether or not someone adopts a behavior. Along with this notion is the fantasy realization theory, a theory that predicts goal commitment. That is, When you have a goal in mind, if you expect to succeed, then you will commit to that goal and be likely to pursue the steps you must take to fulfill it. On the other hand, it follows that, if you do not expect to succeed at your goal, then you are not likely to commit to that goal or pursue behaviors that will help you achieve that goal (16). This theory causes a problem when it comes to people participating in PEB. In the face of a civilization-challenging issue like climate change, it can seem nearly impossible for individuals to feel like their actions make any difference. Unfortunately, that feeling of defeat usually results in people taking the path of least resistance, and as it stands right now in the United States, that is often an environmentally dirty path. In addition, there is the very real aspect of “experiencing is believing.” While it is hard to let people experience climate change, when it does happen, it should be a communication motivator, which happens well at the local level. For example, if an area that is not usually prone to floods gets flooded, it is an opportune time to tie that event back to changing environmental conditions and incite PEB in individuals who were not participating in them already. Their sense of perceived risk can be increased (17). Additionally, the issue can be shrunk, in the sense that people know they can take steps to help their community with these PEB, which will, in turn, provide these individuals with a feeling of making a difference. Another way of promoting self-efficacy is by providing people with an idea of what behaviors they can choose. Rather than just showering them in information about what is going to happen, adding information about what they can do allows 110

people to feel like they have response options (18). Information alone is not enough. The more details about how to start these behaviors, the more impactful they will be. For me, COP20 was a great place to get a feeling of self-efficacy. First, by attending the conference, I felt like I was able to contribute by posting articles on our Students on Climate Change blog. Beyond that, I learned about many other ways I could make a difference. However, I did not just want to incorporate others’ ways of making a difference into my life. I wanted to assess how people are making these differences and determine how we can take it even further. For this fresh perspective, I turned to my own generation.

COP20’s Youth Presence and a Just Solution At COP 20, I found four major youth protests that stood out to me, which included Climate Action Network’s (CAN) “Fossil of the Day,” SustainUS’s “Climate Test,” the Korean Youth Delegation’s “Climate Debt,” and the Canadian Youth Delegation’s “Don’t Discount My Future.” The Fossil of the Day was held at the end of each conference day to draw attention to the countries that have been the biggest roadblocks on the path to forming an agreement. The Climate Test was a “test” created to see if different environmental policies around the world were helping on the road to a just transition to a livable future for all. The Climate Debt pertained to having individual people (those of us at the COP) sign a receipt that tallied the costs (so far and expected) of climate change on people around the globe, in order to encourage everyone to share the responsibility of “paying off” the climate debt. Don’t Discount My Future included a group of young adults who silently protested for those not yet been born who will inherit the world we leave behind—whatever that world will one day become. More importantly, the underlying similarity between all of the protests was globalization. Any agreement that is made must, not only be agreed upon universally, but it must also include everyone. For example, many large developed countries, such as the United States, are very focused on climate change mitigation, which means they want to focus on cutting down emissions and building infrastructure for the future (19). However, there are many poor or developing nations that are vulnerable to climate change and may have already felt its devastating impact (20). Those countries need a global agreement to put heavy emphasis on climate change adaptation, so that, as time moves on, these countries are not casualties. In the four protests, the emphasis of globalization ensured that the voices of the smaller countries were heard and considered. These protests embody what the youth groups represent and have in common. Climate change can no longer be considered something that is only happening to our planet. Instead, youth assert that it is something that is happening to us, the human race. For my generation, it’s not about how much money it will cost the global economy. It’s about the lives we will lose if we don’t do something about this issue. We are no longer fighting to save our planet, but to save ourselves. 111

It is not about the easy solution. It is about the best solution. This is what my generation is trying to communicate.

A New Stage for Climate Communication: Social Media Climate communication has not been very effective in the past because of many different roadblocks. However, the stage that social media presents (emphasizing concise ideas, allowing comments and questions) is conducive to climate and other environmental messaging. Social media has become a prominent force in everyday communication. As it gains popularity, it also changes how people communicate (21). Communication about environmental issues, especially climate change, can be greatly enhanced through the use of social media. This is especially true for communication that targets changing people’s behaviors towards PEB. I am pleased to be a part of SOCC, a program that one day may be looked upon as a leader and pioneer of this idea. The blog we run during the COPs is one of a kind, embodying good communication techniques. The premise of our blog is to create articles that are readable and relatable, in order to reach people who otherwise would have no idea what went on at the COPs. We not only run a blog, but we promote it on different social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. We promote a global outreach that attempts to impact many people, but it does not have specific behavior changes in mind. However, I believe that social media can be used to spur behavior changes. The internet allows people to learn something about anything they want to know. By hosting an environmentally focused social media page on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc., we can promote PEB changes. For example, YouTube videos allow us to overcome problems of “readability.” Videos allow a person to see a behavior, such as recycling or composting, pause, and rewatch it as many times as needed to understand the concept. Twitter and Instagram are excellent stages for short, concise information sharing. By seeing other individuals doing these things and feeling like they are making a difference, people may be more likely to gain a higher sense of self-efficacy when considering those behaviors. These kinds of posts can encourage millions of people to become engaged with the behavior. Beyond promoting individual behaviors, community forums, such as the ones on Facebook, help members of that community stay connected. Additonally, they can update each other throughout the year. A heightened sense of closeness with a community could encourage actions like planting community gardens or promote a higher sense of responsibility for taking care of a local environment. Before the internet, most people surrounded themselves with individuals of like mindsets—people who shared experiences very similar to their own. By connecting individuals on a global scale, the internet enables people who never would have otherwise interacted to “meet” each other, and perhaps gain a better understanding of the ways in which someone else—someone who is very different from them—experiences life. Encouraging diversity is imperative to finding ways 112

to fight climate change and helping people become familiar with others who are different from them can allow the general public to embrace new ideas. The world seems a lot smaller now that it is possible to communicate instantly with someone who is on the other side of the world. The SOCC program helps contribute to this feeling of being a global citizen in a more tangible and direct way. My COP20 experience elevated the sense of importance I felt towards improving climate communication efforts. I believe that, by following through with different messaging tactics that have the ability to appeal to a large audience, more people can become motivated to adopt PEBs, and we can all join in this fight – not as a small program or as one conference, but as one global community.

References 1.

Mimura, N. Vulnerability of island countries in the South Pacific to sea level rise and climate change. Climate Res. 1999, 12, 137–143. 2. Shope, R. Global climate change and infectious diseases. Environ Health Perspect. 1991, 96, 171–174. 3. Students on Climate Change. Web blog. http:// www.studentsonclimatechange.com/student-blog. 4. Diklich, N.; Bariana, S.; MacDonald, J. Jess, Nina and Shelby: Will the U.S. Kerry Some Responsibility? Web log post, Students on Climate Change, December 12, 2014. 5. Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Roser-Renouf, C.; Feinberg, G.; Rosenthal, S. Climate Change in the American Mind; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication; Yale University and George Mason University: New Haven, CT, March 2016. 6. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the gap. Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. 7. Gilbert, D. Buried by bad decisions. Nature 2011, 474, 275–277. 8. Weber, E. U. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change 2006, 77, 103–120. 9. Davis, T. The frog and the polar bear: The real reasons Americans aren’t buying climate change. Web log post, Grist, December 11, 2011. 10. Gifford, R.; Scannell, L.; Kormos, C.; Smolova, L.; Biel, A.; Boncu, S.; Corral, V.; Güntherf, H.; Hanyu, K.; Hine, D.; Kaiser, F. G.; Korpela, K.; Lima, L. M.; Mertig, A. G.; Mira, R. G.; Moser, G.; Passafaro, P.; Pinheiro, J. Q.; Saini, S.; Sako, T.; Sautkina, E.; Savina, Y.; Schmuck, P.; Schultz, W.; Sobeck, K.; Sundblad, E.-L.; Uzzell, D. Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments. An 18-nation study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 1–12. 11. Feinberg, M.; Willer, R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 22, 34–38. 113

12. Feinberg, M.; Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 24, 56–62. 13. Hahnel, U. J.; Arnold, O.; Waschto, M.; Korcaj, L.; Hillmann, K.; Roser, D.; Spada, H. The power of putting a label on it: Green labels weigh heavier than contradicting product information for consumers’ purchase decisions and post-purchase behavior. Front. Psychol. 2013, 6, 1–17. 14. Johnson, E. J.; Shu, S. B.; Dellaert, B. G.; Fox, C.; Goldstein, D. G.; Häubl, G.; Weber, E. U. Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture. Marketing Lett. 2012, 23, 487–504. 15. Guy, S.; Kashima, Y.; Walker, I.; O’Neill, S. Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub. Climatic Change 2013, 121, 579–594. 16. Hornsey, M. J.; Fielding, K. S. A cautionary note about messages of hope. Focusing on progress in reducing carbon emissions weakens mitigation. Global Environmental Change 2016, 39, 26–34. 17. Leiserowitz, A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 2006, 77, 45–72. 18. O’neill, S.; Nicholson-Cole, S. Fear won’t do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication 2009, 30, 355–379. 19. Lutsey, N.; Sperling, D. America’s bottom-up climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy. 2008, 32, 673–685. 20. Bohle, H.; Downing, T.; Watts, M. Climate change and social vulnerability: Toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 1994, 4, 37–48. 21. Chou, W.-Y. S.; Hunt, Y.; Moser, R.; Hesse, B. PsycEXTRA Dataset 2009, 11.

114

Chapter 9

Climate Change Politics in Canada Kowan T. V. O’Keefe* University of Toronto, 27 King’s College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 *E-mail: [email protected].

In recent years, Canada’s federal government has passed little meaningful legislation to fight climate change. A number of Canadian provinces, on the other hand, have enacted noteworthy statures—British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec among them. Since the federal election in October 2015, the newly formed government has shown a more proactive policy on climate change. Canada played a key role in securing the Paris Agreement at COP 21, in stark contrast to the obstructionist position Canada had taken under the previous government. This chapter will examine and compare the climate change policies of Canadian federal and provincial governments, and examine a unique set of challenges and opportunities for Canada arising from the effects of climate change in the Arctic.

Lifetime Unachievement Over the years, Canada has developed a poor reputation on the global stage when it comes to the role it has played at the United Nations climate change conferences. Canada has often been referred to as an obstructionist and a laggard in these international climate change negotiations, actively working to stall progress toward a cleaner, more sustainable future. This reputation was earned in large part over the decade in which Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was in power, as climate action was not one of their priorities. In December 2014, I had the great opportunity to represent the American Chemical Society at the 20th Conference of Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Lima, Peru. In my experience at COP 20, I spoke with delegates from countries around the globe, and whether I was talking with the ambassador to the UN from Palau, a Brazilian © 2017 American Chemical Society

member of parliament from Rio de Janeiro, a marine scientist from Sweden, a specialist in remote sensing from Japan, or a delegate from Bangladesh, there was one thing they all said when we started talking about Canada’s role in combating climate change—that Canada needs to stop standing in the way of progress and do more to support the global agenda. Their criticism is not misdirected, especially when you consider the fact that Canada is one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world (1). One of the most enjoyable events that takes place each day at the COP is the Fossil of the Day presentation. After a long day of negotiations, side events, and press conferences, the international Climate Action Network (CAN) puts on a satirical presentation in which they give an award to the country that is doing the most to do the least, is the best at being the worst, and is doing the most to stall the negotiations. On the final day of COP 20, Canada was awarded the third place Fossil of the Day. They won it for “plenty of underhand work stalling the talks and refusing to make any commitments.” In addition, the Canadian government delegation in Lima claimed that Canada was, “on track to meet their 2020 emissions reduction targets,” while back at home, the government was continuing to push the expansion of Canada’s oil industry (2). These two courses of action are inherently at odds. Canada’s third place Fossil of the Day on the final day of COP 20 was not by any means their first such award. Canada has the most infamous history of any country when it comes to “winning” these awards. From Copenhagen in 2009 (COP 15), to Warsaw in 2013 (COP 19), Canada won more Fossils of the Day than any other country (3). At the end of each COP, the CAN awards the Fossil of the Year, also known as the Colossal Fossil, to the country that has been awarded the most Fossils of the Day at that year’s COP. When I was at COP 20 in Lima, it was the first time in six years that Canada didn’t get the Fossil of the Year, as Canada had the dubious distinction of being the recipient of the award each of the five years prior. It should be noted that this was not due to Canada’s improvement in performance at COP 20, but rather Canada didn’t win because they had become more and more irrelevant on the global stage regarding climate action with each passing year as a result of the lack of effort shown by the Canadian government to deal with climate change. Also, another major factor that contributed to Canada not winning the Fossil of the Year in Lima was the fact that Australia tried really hard to win it (2). COP 19 was an especially rough one for the Canadian government, as they were directly responsible for Canada winning two special Fossils from the CAN. The first-ever Lifetime Unachievement Fossil was given to Canada for their poor climate change policies (4). But that was not all, as Canada was also awarded the first-ever Fossil of Disbelief for publicly voicing support for then-Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, and his government’s attempt to do away with their Carbon Tax in 2013 (5). I realize that there are many issues that a government has to attend to, and I’d like to take a moment to point out that my criticism is of the Harper government’s handling of a particular issue—climate change—and not a criticism of his government as a whole. I would have liked to see his government take action on climate change instead of opting for the business-as-usual policy of inaction. 116

At this point, you are probably wondering what in the world Canada did to earn such a poor reputation globally when it comes to taking action on climate change. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this was Canada’s decision to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. Looking back, Canada was actually a key player in the development of the Kyoto Protocol that was agreed upon in 1997, and then-Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien and his Liberal government ratified the accord in 2002. In the Kyoto Protocol, Canada had committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by around 6% each year from 2008-2012, compared to total emissions from 1990 (6). However, during the lead up to the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol (7). He repeatedly opposed the imposition of binding emissions targets unless they were also imposed upon developing countries such as China and India, which were both exempt from legally binding requirements to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. This sentiment was also shared by the United States, a major economic partner to Canada. In December 2011, just one day removed from the United Nations climate change conference in Durban, South Africa (COP 17), then-Minister of Environment, Peter Kent, announced that Canada would be formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol (8). His main argument was that without the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China, the Kyoto Protocol could not work as a fair framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. He further argued that as a result of knowing that Canada would not meet its Kyoto targets, it was necessary to withdraw in order to avoid penalties to the tune of approximately $14 billion (9). I remember watching Canada disavow the Kyoto Protocol on the news, and I felt embarrassed to be Canadian. It would be an understatement to say that the international community was not happy with this decision by the Canadian government. I understand that there were financial reasons as to why they withdrew—about 14 billion reasons to be exact—but this troubling predicament could have been avoided if the government would have honored their commitment to reduce emissions by enacting climate and energy legislation that would have allowed the country to have a chance to meet its targets. While the Kyoto withdrawal was probably the biggest reason that Canada’s climate change efforts have been held in such poor regard at the international level, there are other notable factors that have contributed to this as well. During the Harper government’s time in power, there were numerous reports of muzzling of government scientists, particularly those engaged in climate-related research. They were not allowed to speak with the media or collaborate with other scientists outside of Canada unless they obtained permission from the government, which was often denied anyway. If they did something that the government did not approve of, the government would retaliate by cutting their funding. In 2014, the Union of Concerned Scientists released an open letter to Prime Minister Harper that was signed by over 800 scientists calling on him to restore funding for scientific research and freedom for Canadian scientists (10). The tar sands in northern Alberta get a lot of media attention as they have been considered by many to be one of the dirtiest forms of oil in the world (11). The Harper government pushed hard to expand oil production in Alberta, and 117

it eventually became highly politicized in both Canada and the United States when TransCanada proposed the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline. A bill was passed by the United States Congress in 2015 that would have allowed TransCanada to build the pipeline, and it was sent to President Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law (12). However, the President ended up vetoing the bill, and as of December 2016 the pipeline has not been built. The Keystone XL Pipeline saga is as clear an example as any of how polarized climate change has become politically. It should be noted that Stephen Harper’s reasons to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol are rational. The fact that China and India did not have to commit to binding emissions reductions is also one of the primary reasons that the United States never even ratified it in the first place. As such, it was difficult for the Harper government to commit to reducing emissions, because it was competing with high-emitting countries that either never ratified Kyoto, or were not required to commit to binding emissions reductions at all. When one considers these points, it’s understandable from an economic point of view why he still pushed the extraction of oil from Alberta’s tar sands and continued to give subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, despite the fact that the previous government had committed the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol (13). Politicians often disagree on a wide range of things—such as immigration reform and government spending—and healthy debate often takes place over the issues of the day, but one issue in particular that has not overwhelmingly divided politicians is the debate concerning the validity of science. For example, you never hear a politician today try to argue that smoking does not cause cancer, or that a poor diet does not increase your risk of heart disease, or that E=mc2 is not a good measure of mass-energy equivalence. But, whether climate change is happening, and whether we are significantly contributing to it, has actually been fiercely debated by some politicians in Canada and the United States. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that climate change is happening, and that we are significantly contributing to it (14). In order for progress to be made, this has to change. Our elected officials cannot afford to be wrong on climate change, and they have a responsibility to the people they represent to heed the advice of the experts on any given issue, which in this particular case is the scientific community. Of all of the things I learned at COP 20, perhaps the most surprising was that with the exception of Canada and the United States, the rest of the world does not appear to debate whether climate change is happening and whether or not we are significantly contributing to it. They have accepted the science and are actively trying to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies. If only the politicians in Canada and the United States could follow suit. As a Canadian, and a proud Canadian at that, it was not easy experiencing all of the negativity toward Canada at COP 20 for the role we have played at the UNFCCC COPs over the years. Each morning in Lima, before heading out to catch the bus that would take us to the COP 20 venue, I would affix a Canadian flag pin to the lapel of my suit jacket. As the days of the conference wore on, and as I heard more and more negativity toward my country, I was a little more 118

hesitant to wear the pin. It was a feeling of embarrassment more than anything, but I continued to wear the pin every day, because I felt as if there was no other voice representing the millions of Canadians who believe that our government should be taking stronger action on climate change.

Provincial Climate Change Initiatives Despite the fact that Canada’s federal government has not passed much meaningful legislation geared toward fighting climate change, a number of Canadian provinces have enacted noteworthy statures—British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec among them. In Canada, the provinces maintain a large amount of power in governing themselves. As a result, most of the action being taken on climate change in Canada is happening at the provincial level, something that many critics of Canada’s federal government sometimes overlook. At COP 20, I met a fellow British Columbian who was speaking at a side event about carbon sinks. I asked him how he responds to others at the COP who are harshly critical of Canada’s lack of action on climate change. He said to tell them that Canada’s provinces have set out most of the environmental policies in Canada that pertain to climate change, not the federal government. Among Canadian provinces, British Columbia has been leading by example in moving forward by taking action on climate change. In 2008, the British Columbia Climate Action Plan was put into force with a commitment by the province to reduce emissions to 80% below 2007 levels by 2050 (15). In 2010, it became North America’s first jurisdiction with a carbon-neutral public sector (16). In addition, almost all local governments in the province have become signatories to the Climate Action Charter (17). As part of this, each local government must report their emissions and plan communities that are more energy efficient, with each having the ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral themselves. In 2008, British Columbia implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It was the first of its kind in North America. Upon its inception, the tax was levied at $10 per tonne of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents), and each year it rose by $5 per tonne until it was capped at $30 per tonne in 2012 (18). One aspect of a carbon tax that a lot of people don’t like is that it is, by nature, another tax that will eventually raise the price of everything downstream. However, this carbon tax is revenue-neutral, which means that all revenue resulting from it is returned to British Columbia residents in the form of tax cuts, or cheques for their share of the revenue. Personally, I happen to like this feature of the carbon tax quite a bit, as I periodically get a cheque in the mail from the provincial government for my share of the revenue generated by the carbon tax. In oil-rich Alberta, home of Canada’s tar sands, the carbon tax is being implemented in 2017. The initial rate will be levied at $20 per tonne and will then increase to $30 per tonne in 2018. This model will account for 78-90% of Alberta’s emissions. In addition to investing in large-scale renewable energy projects and green transportation infrastructure, the Alberta government will use the revenue from the tax to provide carbon rebates for low- and middle-income 119

families, and reduce the tax rate for small businesses by one third (19). Alberta still has a long way to go with regards to dealing with its tar sands, but initiatives such as these are small steps in the right direction. Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, has enacted some noteworthy statures as well. The province set up a $325 million Green Investment Fund in 2015. The purpose of this fund is to provide money for projects that will create jobs and grow the economy, while also fighting climate change. One of the most prominent initiatives that will be funded is the building of a network of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the province. Funding will also be put toward local environmental groups, supporting indigenous communities, and incentivising homeowners to use less energy (20). In addition, Ontario Power Generation shifted away from coal toward cleaner energy sources in 2014 (21). Along with Quebec, Canada’s second-most populous province, Ontario is putting a limit on total greenhouse gas emissions by implementing a cap-and-trade system in 2016 (22). Under this plan, businesses get their own greenhouse gas emissions quota, and if they can run their business more efficiently and don’t use their entire quota, they can sell the rights to their remaining emissions to businesses that aren’t yet as efficient. The key to this system is that total emissions are capped to a maximum amount, and over time the upper limit is lowered. The cap-and-trade systems in Ontario and Quebec grew out of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a non-profit organization that advises jurisdictions on carbon trading strategies, providing administrative and technical assistance (23). The WCI started out as a group of provinces and states in Canada, the United States, and Mexico in 2007 with the goal of taking climate action at the regional level (24). Over the ensuing few years they worked to implement market-based systems to meet their targets. As a result, California, Ontario, and Quebec now have cap-and-trade programs in place, and British Columbia has a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Another interprovincial/interstate initiative is the Pacific Coast Collaborative (PCC), established in 2008, which includes British Columbia and the U.S. states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California (25). The PCC’s primary goal is to develop strategies for dealing with economic risks associated with climate change by coordinating their provincial/state-level policies to achieve broader sustainability goals (24). The jurisdictions in the PCC account for more than 55 million people and a total GDP of $3.2 trillion USD (26–29). The premier of British Columbia and the governors of the four U.S. states are working together to develop policy frameworks geared toward goals such as the implementation of low-carbon transportation infrastructure, generating investments in renewable energy, and creating an environment for a sustainable regional economy (25). With Canadian provinces and U.S. states holding a fair degree of power to implement their own energy and environmental policies, is it possible that these kinds of interprovincial/interstate climate initiatives could be a successful platform on which we can still move forward on climate action in the absence of federal leadership?

120

Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities in the Arctic One part of the world where the effects of climate change are particularly evident is in the Arctic. When most people think about climate change in the Arctic, inevitably one of the first images that comes to mind is that of a polar bear balancing on a small piece of ice. Without question, the effect of climate change on animal species in the Arctic and around the world is certainly alarming and of the utmost importance. However, there are many other pressing issues to consider with regard to climate change in the Arctic, as changes in this part of the world are relevant to Canada, the United States, and other nations that hold a large stake in the region. Going forward, these actors will play a key role in shaping the geopolitical situation there. The Government of Canada’s official Northern Strategy lists four priority areas, two of which are very relevant to climate change. The first is a commitment to exercising their Arctic sovereignty, which entails everything related to territorial claims and the other issues that go along with that, including the potential for natural resource development, and legal concerns regarding the soon to be navigable Northwest Passage. The second priority is protecting their environmental heritage, especially the fragile ecosystems at risk from a changing Arctic (30). At COP 20, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that the average temperature in the Arctic has risen more than twice as fast as the global average temperature (31). In that same timeframe, there has been a substantial reduction in the extent of the Arctic sea ice during the summer months, when it is at an annual minimum. According to the IPCC, we will likely see an ice-free summer in the Arctic before 2050 if we do not curb our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions (32). To put that into perspective, that’s before the majority of today’s college students will turn sixty years old; if that isn’t a strong indication as to the immediate seriousness of this situation, I don’t know what is. These changes have already spurred interest in some of the unique challenges and opportunities arising from the effects of climate change in this part of the world. One opportunity resulting from a melting polar ice cap is the opening of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route. The Northwest Passage winds through the Canadian archipelago in the Arctic, and with a shrinking polar ice cap, it will soon be possible to regularly pass ships through these waters. As these waters become navigable, it will dramatically cut the distance that ships travel between Europe and the western coast of North America. In the fall of 2016, a cruise ship sailed through its waters (33). On the other side of the Arctic Ocean, we find the Northern Sea Route, which hugs the Siberian coastline in Russia. Here again, as it becomes more viable to pass ships through these waters on a regular basis, we would see a huge reduction in the distance that ships travel from Europe to the eastern coast of Asia. Since 2011, small numbers of ships have passed through the Northern Sea Route during the summer months, prompting Moscow to set up an office that specifically deals with issuing shipping permits for commercial vessels seeking passage through their Arctic waters (34). With the advent of ships sailing through these passages, 121

one would expect a reduction in traffic and waiting times at both the Panama and Suez Canals. Another reason that many nations have a keen interest in the Arctic is its treasure trove of natural resources. It has been estimated that the Arctic is home to about 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas, as well as around 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves, the equivalent of approximately 90 billion barrels of oil (35). In addition, there are large deposits of diamonds and other minerals (36). As the Arctic thaws, these resources will become more accessible for extraction. Of course, without major advances in clean energy technology or carbon-capture and storage technology, it would be counterproductive to harvest the enormous fossil fuel reserves in the region. Otherwise we will dramatically reduce any chance we have at limiting average warming to below 2 °C globally by the end of the century (37). Perhaps the most challenging aspect of climate change in the Arctic is the impending settlement of territorial claims that different nations have made in the region. At present, there are a handful of disputed areas that two or more nations claim to be within their territorial waters (38). The settlement of these sovereignty claims will have a huge impact on how shipping permits are issued for the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, as well as who has the rights to the plentiful natural resources under the sea floor. In the instance of two or more nations having disputed territorial claims, what often results is a disagreement concerning legal rights of passage, and ownership of natural resources. Moreover, a strain in relations between the nations involved usually results from such situations. In order to understand this, one has to look no further than the tension in the South China Sea over China’s actions in building an artificial island in an attempt to claim more of the South China Sea as their own, even though their new claim overlaps with the territorial claims of other countries (39). The Arctic nations are sure to be keeping a close eye on how things play out in the South China Sea—the outcome is critical, because its precedent could play a role in how things ultimately shake out in the Arctic. The boldest move by any country so far in the Arctic has been by Russia when they used a submersible to plant a Russian flag on the sea floor of the North Pole in 2007 (40). This move was met with condemnation from a number of countries in the region, Canada and Denmark in particular, as they each claim the North Pole to be within their sovereign waters (41). Since 2007, the Russians have been heavily expanding their military capabilities in the Arctic, which has included the reactivation of a number of Soviet-era military bases (42). In response to Russian military expansion, the Norwegians have reassessed their Arctic strategy and increased their presence in the region (43). Canada is building permanent military installations in the Arctic, as well as participating in joint military exercises with the United States, and collaborating more closely with them (44). In the spring of 2015, Russia carried out a massive Arctic military exercise with about 40,000 troops (45). Shortly thereafter, the Canadian Forces responded with a smaller Arctic military exercise of their own (46). Despite more serious disputes between nations over Arctic sovereignty, there has been some good-natured disagreement over territorial claims in the region. Hans island—a small, rocky island that lies half in Danish territory and half in 122

Canadian territory—has been a source of disagreement between the two nations. While there have been some minor political differences over sovereignty of the island, there is a humorous side to the story as well. Whenever the Canadian military sails by, they leave a bottle of Canadian rye whiskey and a sign that says “Welcome to Canada.” The next time the Danish military sails by, they take the bottle of whiskey and leave a Danish flag and a bottle of schnapps for the Canadians (47). Looking ahead, one diplomatic vessel that may be relied upon to solve disputes in the region is the Arctic Council, comprised of the five Scandinavian nations plus Canada, Russia, and the United States (48). Each year, the Arctic Council meets to engage in dialogue concerning Arctic-related issues. However, as the Arctic becomes more accessible, as rich natural resource deposits are tapped into, and as sovereignty claims are settled, there is the possibility that tensions between the nations involved could become strained, ultimately leading to a much more complex geopolitical situation in the Arctic.

A New Hope The Canadian federal election in October 2015 saw Stephen Harper’s Conservative majority in the House of Commons replaced by a Liberal majority, with Justin Trudeau becoming Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister. During the election campaign, climate change was one of the issues that got a lot of airtime. In fact, when I was watching one of the Leaders’ Debates, a full 30 minutes was devoted to debating issues revolving around the environment, energy, and climate change. The newly-elected prime minister showed his recognition of climate change as an important issue by renaming the title of the Minister of Environment to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change—a first in Canadian politics at the federal level (49). Also, government scientists in Canada finally feel safe talking about their research publicly, something the old government suppressed, but the new government encourages (50). Under the new federal government, Canada played a much more proactive role at COP 21, in stark contrast to the obstructionist role that Canada has been known to play over the years. Prime Minister Trudeau extended invitations to all opposition party leaders, as well as to all of the provincial premiers to join the Canadian delegation to COP 21 (51). Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change was even chosen as one of the 14 environment ministers from around the world tasked with facilitating the final negotiations at COP 21 that ultimately led to the adoption of the Paris Agreement (52). It should be noted that Canada still won a Fossil of the Day in Paris for not having ambitious enough emissions reduction targets for 2020 (53). In addition to becoming a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Canada has also made climate pledges at the G20, where nations have committed to phasing out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (54). In June 2016, at the North American Leaders’ Summit, Canada, Mexico, and the United States announced a new climate deal that commits all three countries to generating half of their electricity from clean sources, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. In addition, the three 123

nations committed to decreasing methane emissions and investing in clean energy projects to help workers that may lose their jobs in the transition from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy sources (55). In their National Climate Action Plan, Canada’s federal government has committed to setting ambitious emissions-reduction targets, and implementing measures that will help the country reach those goals. This includes collaborating with the provinces and territories to give them the freedom to implement their own carbon pricing strategies, and providing them with the necessary financial resources to fund those programs (56). The government has also hinted that they will work with the provinces to implement a national price on carbon. As part of the new government’s National Climate Action Plan, member’s of parliament are engaging the public through “People’s Climate Consultations” in the form of town hall sessions in communities across the nation (57). The government wants its citizens to have a say in the process. I think it is encouraging that they are giving Canadians the opportunity to have their voice heard in a nationwide discussion, and it’s refreshing to have a government now that not only recognizes that climate change is a serious problem but also appears to consider climate action as a priority. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth. He is working to reach out to young Canadians, who are not represented in government, as virtually all politicians are from older generations. At the time of this writing, the implementation of the first ever Prime Minister’s Youth Council is underway. The purpose of this initiative is to establish a council of young Canadians, between the ages of 16 and 24, who will serve two-year terms advising the Prime Minister on issues affecting young Canadians (58). One of the key issues on the agenda will be climate change. The prime minister is not the only one who recognizes the value of the ideas that today’s youth can bring to the table. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban-Ki Moon, says that the youth of today are the “last generation that will be able to put an end to climate change (59).”Engaging the youth of today is going to be critical in the struggle toward combating climate change, especially because today’s politicians are much older than we are and may not have as much motivation as we do to take action. Social media is a powerful tool that needs to be used to its full extent to engage as many young people as possible and to increase climate literacy among the general public. Attending COP 20 was inspiring. Even though the vast majority of delegates were many years older than I was, the young people who were there were a very proactive bunch. Our voices were being heard. It was inspiring to see others who care about our future as much as we do and want to have a stake in the decision-making process to make the world a better place for us all. Combating climate change is an endeavor that is bigger than any one of us, bigger than any one community, and bigger than any one nation—we are all in this together. It was clear to me that all of the nations at COP 20 had a clear understanding that something needs to be done to fight climate change. Despite the lack of effort on the part of Canada, the nations of the world laid the foundation for the Paris Agreement by agreeing to a new bottom-up framework that would require all countries to submit national climate action plans, also known as Intended 124

Nationally Determined Contributions (60). This framework ultimately became the cornerstone of the Paris Agreement that was adopted at COP 21 (61). We do have reason for hope that the Paris Agreement can work. The world has come together in the past to agree to the Montreal Protocol, which addressed the effect of chlorofluorocarbons and similar compounds on ozone depletion in the atmosphere (62). The nations of the world collectively worked to reverse the damage we had done. It was a much simpler problem than climate change, but we showed that we can do it. Now, we must mobilize our collective efforts and do it again to ensure that the Paris Agreement has the intended consequence of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and putting the world on track toward a more sustainable future. In order to do this, we need to change the political narrative from “is it really happening?” to “what are we going to do about it?” Today, every vote is a climate vote. We need to elect officials who accept the science and will actively put forth solutions to fight climate change. It is also critical that once they are in office, we hold them accountable to their promises and demand action. We have to be persistent. We also need to get more young people interested in, and excited about, public service, as our voices need to be heard at the highest level. For the first time in my adult life, there is hope that the Canadian federal government will finally take steps to fight climate change, and a sense of cautious optimism that Canada is done with playing an obstructionist role on the global stage. It is too early to be certain of what the outcomes will be, but we must hold them accountable to their promises and their talk about fighting climate change to ensure that it is transformed into action and legislation that ultimately have a positive impact on our planet and our future. Canada has the opportunity to transform itself into a global leader in fighting climate change. I sincerely hope that Canada can seize this opportunity, because as President Barack Obama said in a speech to the Canadian Parliament in June 2016, “The world needs more Canada (63)!”

References 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

United Nations Statistics Division. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_greenhouse_emissions.htm (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Climate Action Network International. Umbrella and LMDC Countries Take Fossil for Failing on Concept of “Negotiation.” [Online] Dec. 12, 2014. http://www.climatenetwork.org/node/4834 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Climate Action Network International. Fossil of the Day. http:// www.climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Climate Action Network Canada. Canada Wins ‘Lifetime Unachievement’ Fossil Award at Warsaw Climate Talks. [Online] Nov. 22, 2013. http:// climateactionnetwork.ca/2013/11/22/canada-wins-lifetime-unachievementfossil-award-at-warsaw-climate-talks/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Climate Action Network International. Australian Carbon Price Repeal Drags Country Back to the Fossil Era. [Online] Nov. 13, 2013. 125

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

http://www.climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day/australian-carbon-pricerepeal-drags-country-back-fossil-era (accessed Aug. 30, 2016) Parliament of Canada. 2007-21-E The Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/ prb0721-e.htm#bcanada (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). The Toronto Star. Harper Letter Called Out Kyoto ‘Socialist Scheme.’ [Online] Jan. 30, 2007. https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/01/30/ harper_letter_called_kyoto_socialist_scheme.html (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). CBC News. Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto Protocol. [Online] Dec. 12, 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-kyoto-protocol1.999072 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). The Globe and Mail. Canada Formally Abandons Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. [Online] Dec. 12, 2011. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/ politics/canada-formally-abandons-kyoto-protocol-on-climate-change/ article4180809/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). CBC News. Foreign Scientists Call on Stephen Harper to Restore Science Funding, Freedom. [Online] Oct. 20, 2014. http://www.cbc.ca/news/ technology/foreign-scientists-call-on-stephen-harper-to-restore-sciencefunding-freedom-1.2806571 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Scientific American. How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? [Online] Jan. 23, 2013. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tarsands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/ (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 114th Congress (2015−2016). S.1 – Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1?q=%7B% 22search%22%3A%5B%22keystone+approval%22%5D%7D&resultIndex =1 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). National Observer. Can Trudeau Undo Harper’s Pattern of Payouts to Fossil Fuels? [Online] Nov 12, 2015. http://www.nationalobserver.com/ 2015/11/12/news/can-trudeau-undo-harpers-pattern-payouts-fossil-fuels (accessed Aug. 30, 2016) Cook, J; Nuccitelli, D; Green, SA; Richardson, M; Winkler, B; Painting, R; Way, R; Jacobs, P; Skuce, A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 024024. Government of British Columbia. Climate Action Plan. http:// www.gov.bc.ca/premier/attachments/climate_action_plan.pdf (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Government of British Columbia. Carbon Neutral Government. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policylegislation-programs/carbon-neutral-government (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). Government of British Columbia. Local Government Climate Action Leadership. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climatechange/policy-legislation-programs/civic-sector-leadership (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 126

18. Government of British Columbia. The Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policylegislation-programs/carbon-tax (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 19. Alberta Government. Carbon Levy and Rebates. http://www.alberta.ca/ climate-carbon-pricing.aspx (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 20. Government of Ontario. Green Investment Fund. https://www.ontario.ca/ page/green-investment-fund (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 21. Ontario Power Generation. Generating Power. http://www.opg.com/ generating-power/Pages/generating-power.aspx (acessed Aug. 30, 2016). 22. Government of Ontario Newsroom. Ontario Posts Final Cap and Trade Regulation. [Online] May 19, 2016.https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2016/05/ ontario-posts-final-cap-and-trade-regulation.html (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 23. Western Climate Initiative, Inc. http://www.wci-inc.org/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 24. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Multi-State Climate Initiatives. http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/regional-climate-initiatives (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 25. Pacific Coast Collaborative. Priorities. http://pacificcoastcollaborative.org/ priorities/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 26. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/en.html (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 27. Statistics Canada. Population by Year, by Province and Territory. http:/ /www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 28. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. http:/ /www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2016/pdf/qgsp0716.pdf (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 29. Statistics Canada. Gross Domestic Product, Expenditure-Based, By Province and Territory. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/ econ15-eng.htm (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 30. Government of Canada. Canada’s Northern Strategy. http:// www.northernstrategy.gc.ca/index-eng.asp (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/ mains1.html (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 33. Global News. Crystal Serenity’s Journey through Northwest Passage Draws Excitement, Climate Change Fears. [Online] Aug. 29, 2016. http://globalnews.ca/news/2908883/crystal-serenitys-journey-throughnorthwest-passage-draws-excitement-climate-change-fears/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). 34. Northern Sea Route Information Office. Transit Statistics. http://www.arcticlio.com/nsr_transits (acessed Aug. 30, 2016). 35. U.S. Geological Survey. 90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Fee of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic. [Online] Jul. 22, 2008. 127

36. 37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/audio/90-billion-barrels-oil-and-1670-trillioncubic-feet-natural-gas-assessed-arctic (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). The Arctic. Natural Resources. http://arctic.ru/resources/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Newsroom. Most Fossil Fuels Must Stay in the Ground: New Study. [Online] Jan. 8, 2015. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/most-fossil-fuels-muststay-in-the-ground-new-study/ (accessed Sep. 15, 2016). International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University. Maritime Jurisdiction and Boundaries in the Arctic region. https://www.dur.ac.uk/ ibru/resources/arctic/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016) BBC News. Why Is the South China Sea Contentious? [Online] Jul. 12, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). National Geographic News. Russia Plants Underwater Flag, Claims Arctic Seafloor. [Online] Aug. 3, 2007. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2007/08/070802-russia-pole.html (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). CBC News. The North Pole: Does Denmark Have a Legitimate Claim? [Online] Dec. 15, 2014. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/the-northpole-does-denmark-have-a-legitimate-claim-1.2873953 (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). The Guardian. Russia Prepares for Ice-Cold War with Show of Military Force in the Arctic. [Online] Oct. 21, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ 2014/oct/21/russia-arctic-military-oil-gas-putin (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). News in English, Norway. Foreign Spies Target the Arctic. [Online] Oct. 3, 2012. http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/10/03/foreign-spies-target-thearctic/ (accessed Aug. 30, 2016). CBC News. Canadian, U.S. Troops Share Knowledge at Arctic Military Operation. [Online] Apr. 11, 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ how-to-land-a-hercules-operation-nunalivut-1.3530258 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). CBC News. Russia Launches Massive Arctic Military Drills. [Online] Mar. 16, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/russia-launches-massivearctic-military-drills-1.2996776 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). Ottawa Citizen. Arctic Response Company Returns from Exercise – Temperatures Dipped to −50 degrees C.[Online] Mar. 30, 2015. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/arctic-responsecompany-returns-from-exercise-temperatures-dipped-to-50-degrees-c (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). CBC News. Canada, Denmark Should Turn Hans Island into a Condominium: Academics. [Online] Nov. 12, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/north/canada-denmark-should-turn-hans-island-into-acondominium-academics-1.3315640 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). The Arctic Council. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us (accessed Aug. 31, 2016).

128

49. CBC News. New Cabinet Sees Addition of New Words to Ministers’ Titles. [Online] Nov. 4, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/new-cabinetministers-canada-title-changes-1.3303954 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 50. National Observer. Harper’s Reign of Terror Finally over for Scientists. [Online] Nov. 9, 2015. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/09/news/ harper%E2%80%99s-reign-terror-finally-over-scientists (accessed Aug. 30, 2016) 51. National Observer. Elizabeth May Welcomes Trudeau’s Climate Truce. [Online] Oct. 25, 2015. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/25/news/ elizabeth-may-welcomes-trudeau%E2%80%99s-climate-truce (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 52. CBC News. Canada Invited To Facilitate Climate Talks for 1st ime in a Decade. [Online] Dec. 6, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadaclimate-change-cop21-talks-facilitator-1.3353235 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 53. Climate Action Network International. EU and Umbrella Group Win Fossil for Blocking Ambition Boost. [Online] Dec. 10, 2015. http://www.climatenetwork.org/node/5513 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016) 54. G20. Leaders’ Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit, September 24−25, 2009. http://www.g20.org/English/Documents/PastPresidency/201512/ P020151225615583055801.pdf (accessed Aug. 31, 2016) 55. Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. Leaders’ Statement on a North American Climate, Clean Energy, and Environment Partnership. [Online] Jun. 29, 2016. http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/29/leaders-statementnorth-american-climate-clean-energy-and-environment-partnership (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 56. Government of Canada. Canada’s Way Forward on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=72F16A84-1 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 57. People’s Climate Plan. http://peoplesclimate.ca/home/ (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 58. Government of Canada. Prime Minister’s Youth Council. https:// www.canada.ca/en/campaign/prime-ministers-youth-council.html (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 59. United Nations. Secretary General Statements and Messages. [Online] May 28, 2015. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sgsm16800.doc.htm (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 60. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Newsroom. Lima to Paris. [Online] Dec. 14, 2014. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lima/ lima-call-for-climate-action-puts-world-on-track-to-paris-2015/ (accessed Aug. 31, 2016) 61. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement. http://bigpicture.unfccc.int/#content-the-paris-agreemen (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 62. Ozone Secretariat. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montrealprotocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer (accessed Aug. 31, 2016). 129

63. CBC News. Read and Watch President Barack Obama’s Speech to Parliament. [Online] Jun. 29, 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ president-barack-obama-full-speech-parliament-1.3659229 (accessed Aug. 31, 2016).

130

Editors’ Biographies Keith E. Peterman Keith Peterman is a Professor of Chemistry at York College of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the ACS Committee on Environmental Improvement. He has served as a Fulbright Scholar in Germany and in Russia, a National Academy of Sciences Scholar in Poland, a Research Fellow at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, and as a visiting professor in China and New Zealand. He writes a blog hosted by the York Daily Record and is a contributing member of the Huffington Post blog team. He participates in the United Nations climate conferences as an accredited member of the press.

Gregory P. Foy Gregory P. Foy is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at York College of Pennsylvania. He is the Chemistry Program Coordinator, and his research interests are focused on Environmental Chemistry. He is a member of the ACS Committee on Meetings and Expositions. Since the International Year of Chemistry 2011, he has shepherded more than 50 college students to attend the yearly United Nations climate change meetings. He writes a blog hosted by the York Daily Record and is a contributing member of the Huffington Post blog team and attends the COPs as an accredited member of the press.

Matthew R. Cordes Matt Cordes is the Founder and Principal Writer at WritingWorks. Since 2005 he has worked with more than 250 commercial and nonprofit clients in the northeastern United States to provide writing, research, and business development consulting. With several clients working in the renewable energy space, (primarily solar photovoltaics and biodigestion), Matt focuses on topics of climate and energy in many of his writing efforts. He has participated in several United Nations climate conferences and written extensively on the topic of climate change.

© 2017 American Chemical Society

Indexes

Author Index Cordes, M., ix DeLuca, N., 49 Diklich, N., 91 Foy, G., ix, 25 Foy, R., 25 Ingram, N., 79

Millard, D., 67 O’Keefe, K., 115 Peterman, K., ix, 1 Teppert, K., 105 Tomaine, A., 15

135

Subject Index A Anthropocene, 49 climate change, natural drivers, 57 solar energy, 57 sunspots, yearly averaged number, 58f volcanic events, 58 greenhouse gases, role, 51 atmospheric CO2 concentrations, 800,000-year record, 53f carbon dioxide, 52 methane, 53 nitrous oxide, 54 three major greenhouse gases, atmospheric concentrations, 55f humans are responsible carbon isotopes, 59 climate models, 60 temperature anomaly, types of climate model simulations, 61f rising temperatures, 55 anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, 56 what is the anthropocene, 50

C Canada, climate change politics Arctic, navigating the challenges and opportunities, 121 lifetime unachievement, 115 new hope, 123 provincial climate change initiatives, 119 Climate change, protests, and youth movements artistic expression, 98 COP21, interactive art installations, 100f COP20 in Lima Peru, interactive art installation, 101f COP21 in Paris, France, 99f international youth movements, 92 protests, 101 public demonstrations, ban, 102 public engagement, 93 American Chemical Society, fellow student delegate, 94f conference attendees, 95f COP21, interactive and imaginative Google Portal, 97f

Fossil of the Day ceremony, 96f Ikea, ACS student delegate, 98f Climate change discussion, student engagement ACS student ambassador, preparations, 19 climate change, ACS policy, 16 COP16, 19 daily grind, 20 gaining UN accreditation, 18 hope, beacon, 21 International Year of Chemistry, 16 SOCC, birth, 17 Climate change literacy and education, 1 alarm bells ring, 8 climate change project, birth of the ACS students, 3 early greenhouse hypothesis, 3 human history, 4 history and project overview, 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 9 Keeling curve, 5 curve, 7f Rio to Paris, long road, 9 climate science literacy and education, 11 historic Paris Agreement, 10 Climate perspective, change COP20’s youth presence, 111 neutral messaging, 108 past climate communication techniques, problems, 107 promote self-efficacy, 110 readable messages, 109 social media, new stage for climate communication, 112 Climate science education climate change, online resources, 44 climate change, United States teachers, 33 climate change vs international attitudes, 27 climate science, other challenges for educators, 32 climate science, teaching in the biology classroom, 38 in the chemistry classroom, 39 CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere influencing CO2 concentrations, changes, 40f Earth’s energy balance, 42f

137

in the earth science classroom, 42 ecological landscape, predicted percentage, 39f ocean acidification chemical equation, 41f in the physics classroom, 41 sea level rise since 1880, 43f currently teaching and what they should be teaching, gap between, 35 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 37 American Chemical Society (ACS), 37 Geological Society of America, The, 37 National Academies of Science (NAS), 36 National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), 37 National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT), 38 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 37 National Research Council (NRC), 36 National Science Foundation (NSF), 36 National Science Teacher Association (NSTA), 36 politically charged topic, climate change, 30 group ignoring the scientific evidence, filters, 31f science education in the United States, 26 United States, climate science education, 28 mixed messages and equal time for opposing viewpoints, 29

worldwide climate science education, 28

L Living oceans conservation, international cooperation, 84 defense against climate change, 84 marine protected areas, future, 82 marine protected areas and overfishing, 83 ocean acidification, 81 recent conservation efforts, 80 sea level rise, 85 sea level rise, implications, 85

T Terrestrial technology, space technologies paired, 67 act of melting, 72 sea ice decline, 72f Alaska, glacier retreat, 68f clouds and aerosols, data collection, 70 carbon dioxide, primary driver for climate change, 71 end product, 74 NASA hyperwall on display, 75f new generation, same tactics, 76 problem at hand, 69 increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, Keeling curve, 70f space observation, beginning, 68 water, analyzing climate change’s effects, 73

138