Climate change -- no matter how benign or severe a course it takes -- makes legislating during the 21st century one of the most complicated and complex tasks for elected officials in human history. And narrowing one's focus from abstract and obscure global patterns to the more concrete and local impacts of global warming doesn't necessarily make it easier for North Carolina policymakers to guide how homes get built, water distributed or food grown.
Yesterday I attended a climate change discussion at UNC Chapel Hill led by Dr. Lawrence Band, director of the university's Institute for the Environment. He kicked off a month-long program that enables the general public to hear from the professors who contributed to this 2009 climate change report. You can sign up for the other presentations here.
About 75 or so people attended Band's presentation last night and he did an excellent job of giving an overview of the climate change research and what it has to say about potential North Carolina impacts. But it's such a heady topic that I can understand why so many eyes glaze over when people read or hear about it. So many variables to wrap one's mind around and such looong time frames to think about.
Nevertheless, Band said something during his presentation that stuck with me and gave me an idea of how tricky it is for policymakers to decide how to best address climate change. Scientists have found, for example, that North Carolina and the Southeast experienced a rather steep cooling period from 1950-1970, and that, while the average temperatures have warmed since then, they are not as warm as they were during the 1930s. Band said one theory is that reforestation that occurred as a result of the South's movement away from agriculture helped generate cooler temperatures during the mid-20th century because of increased tree cover. On the other hand, he said, the boom in urban development that has occurred since the 1990s is causing a second wave of deforestation that could send temperatures back up to their 1930s levels.
"Global warming will impact places in different ways," Band said. "We're not quite sure why this has occurred. The Southeast has been quite difficult to predict."
Of course, that made me wonder about the growing interest now in reviving local food systems and supplying most of our food needs from North Carolina agriculture. Should policymakers and food producers be concerned that increased local food production will require deforestation that could accelerate warming temperatures in the state?
Band also mentioned another potential trade-off of forests: while they do sequester carbon and offer flood protection, tree canopies can also leave us vulnerable to drought because they evaporate more groundwater and reduce stream flows. Hmmm...
Band pooh-poohed the argument by climate-change doubters that Americans should wait until we have absolute proof of global warming before we take action, quipping that people don't make stock picks with certainty.
"We can't wait for uncertainty to vanish before we make decisions," he said.
Instead, he said policymakers should pursue "no regrets" policies that provide co-benefits, such as reducing asthma rates, etc. From the institute's report:
"Even if climate change were to turn out to be more limited or more gradual than the consensus judgments of climate science experts now expect, there are compelling reasons to consider serious changes and innovations that would serve not only to mitigate and/or adapt to climate consequences, but to promote North Carolina’s economic development and protect its environment. These are often called “no-regrets” policies or “co-benefits” of climate change policies, although they could just as easily be referred to as healthy energy and economic development policies that also have significant benefits to addressing whatever impacts of climate change may occur."
(So why is it that often the debate is not framed that way? And why don't we just stop subsidizing activities that are carbon intensive or vulnerable to volatile weather patterns?)
The institute recommends that the state, among other things:
* encourage the development of more compact, mixed-use development;
* reform insurance systems to improve adaptability to increased coastal storm and flood surge risks;
* conduct a pilot study of pay-as-you-drive automobile insurance programs to reduce unnecessary travel.
I asked Band what options North Carolinians have if federal and international lawmakers do not pass mitigation and adaptation strategies. He replied that he is optimistic that education can reduce consumption and change people's behaviors over the short term. Someone else in the audience responded that the many public and private initiatives, from the Slow Food movement to public transportation efforts could make a big difference locally. I also know that the Board of Governors for the UNC system is considering a sustainability policy that would require all campuses to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
"I think most people want to do the right thing but they don't know the easiest way to do that," Band said.
What do you think? How should the climate change conversation be framed and what "no regrets" policies should our leaders pursue?
By the way, the UNC Friday Center will screen two short films about climate change and hold a panel discussion on Nov. 10 at 7 p.m. The film was produced by Oxfam America and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy will moderate the discussion, which will focus on the geopolitical, national and global security and other destabilizing impacts of climate change. Contact ClimateForum2009@gmail.com to get more information. I couldn't find a Web page for the event.
