CVIndependent

Tue11202018

Last updateTue, 18 Sep 2018 1pm

BONN, Germany—The camera and lights switched on, and Ole Torp, the Charlie Rose of Norway, leaned in, silver hair flashing, and posed his first question to Gov. Jerry Brown.

“Is the world going to hell?”

“Yes,” Brown answered swiftly.

The interview, taped last week in Oslo, was declared a fabulous success, one the television audience would quite enjoy.

On a nearly two-week swing through Europe—starting at the Vatican and ending at the United Nations climate change conference in Bonn—Brown offered a bleak appraisal of the global future: We are on a trajectory toward hell. It’s a headlong rush to a very unpleasant outcome. Mankind is on the chopping block.

Yet Brown dazzled. His message—the planet is burning up, and our oil-driven way of life must change—brought Vatican scientists to their feet. European parliamentarians in Brussels swooned, calling him a warrior. In Oslo, an international group of scientists paid Brown their highest compliment: inviting him to their inner sanctum for a day-long “dialogue,” a dreary recitation of the looming crash of spaceship Earth. Students in Stuttgart, inheritors of the mess Brown describes, mobbed the 79-year-old for selfies.

It wasn’t all adulation, all the time. A rebuke from a couple of parliamentarians in Brussels led to a sharp exchange over the effect of climate-change policies on the poor. And hecklers tried to shout down the governor during a speech in Bonn as they protested his oil policies.

But the criticism did little to deter Brown, who was on message throughout the trip: Climate change is a serious threat, but California is doing its part—and, especially, come to San Francisco next year for a climate conference that gets things accomplished.

In the absence of climate policy from the U.S. government, or recognition that human activity has played a role in warming the world, Brown has become a de facto climate leader—Al Gore 2.0, as an Afghan journalist here observed offhandedly. During his November trip, Brown was repeatedly called on to voice an opinion on President Trump’s assertion that climate change is a hoax. He told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in a taped interview that “Trump better get on board or get out of the way.” On most other occasions, Brown largely held his fire, perhaps not wanting to give the president’s arguments any oxygen.

Mostly, he focused on burnishing California’s “green” reputation—and his own, as he looks ahead to life after Sacramento, a subject he won’t go near. Brown reminded his audiences that the state has the nation’s strictest fuel standards, subsidizes electric cars, and demands the most energy-efficient buildings. He held sessions with members of the Under2 Coalition, a group of more than 200 nations, states and provinces that have pledged to reduce carbon emissions and work with each other to meet the goals of the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate agreement. That includes a commitment to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

The group, which Brown helped create, is gaining in heft, with several new members acquired during Brown’s trip. According to the coalition, it represents more than 1 billion people and nearly 40 percent of the global economy.

Brown argues that climate-change policy is local as much as national or global, and that mayors, governors and regional officials can bring about significant change. That argument swayed the government of Fiji—which currently holds the rotating presidency of the conference—to name Brown to the position of special adviser for states and regions. That position did not give the governor access to the negotiating table, where the U.S. delegation and others are hammering out implementation rules for the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Brown’s stated purpose for going to Europe was to raise awareness about the threat of climate change. At every stop, officials said they found power in his message.

Sandy Pitcher, the chief executive of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources for the state of South Australia, described Brown as “authentic.”

“He’s channeling something like the tough lesson you have to hear and should hear, ‘You’ll thank me for it later,’” she said. “I don’t think we have someone like him in Australia in the public discourse doing what he’s doing.”

Her state belongs to Under2. These so-called subnationals—or “supernationals” as Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said here—will put on their own summit next September in San Francisco. The meeting, sanctioned by the U.N., will bring together nations and industry and require each entity to report its annual emissions and set a reduction goal.

The inclusion of businesses is unique. Brown said that businesses—some of them big carbon-emitters—could potentially provide the technology to solve pressing climate problems. And their presence can send a signal that California is open to, and for, business.

Now Brown and his staff are mostly back in Sacramento. It’s likely to be a hard landing for the governor, leaving the mostly enveloping warmth of like-minded people to tangle with a sometimes-unruly Legislature and get back to the arduous job of managing California.

He returns to a state where not everyone is in the thrall of the climate-crusader message. Critics in the environmental-justice movement, for example, say laws to reduce pollution have not yet made lives better in many low-income communities still plagued by toxic air, water and soil—that Sacramento’s good intentions seem to be scrubbing clean every backyard but theirs.

With legislative priorities looming for his final year in office, Brown claims to not have a comprehensive idea of what he wants to accomplish.

“I don’t have an agenda for next year. I don’t even think about it,” he told CALmatters in an interview during the conference that was only partly disrupted when Arnold Schwarzenegger, also in town for the conference, stopped by to chat.

“I’m a step-by-step kind of guy,” Brown said. “We have continuing work to increase the rehabilitative character of our prisons and jails. We have to up our capacity to transform lives instead of re-imbed and reinforce antisocial behavior. That will require effort, and mental health programs.”

Much of the environmental legislation he has championed is now on the books. With enormous political effort during the summer, he was able to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program until 2030. What’s next? Brown supports an electricity delivery system that spans the West, offering better integration and sharing of renewable power, among other benefits.

Such a plan would cede state decision-making to a regional authority, and Brown admits the highly complex project may take a while.

Control of the grid is a thorny issue. For example, states have varying requirements for the use of renewable energy, and California would hesitate to import coal-fired power from elsewhere. Working out such elements is complex and painstaking.

“We don’t get instant coffee,” he said. “I didn’t do everything the first year. Each year, there are more things that become possible because we’ve done other things. It’s a good idea, and it will come.”

First things first: another summit, which Brown, in his grumpy fashion, said will be more of an anti-summit.

“There’s a lot of talking and there’s a lot of eating at these things,” Brown said. “I’ve talked enough. I want to get something done.”

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Published in Environment

Last month in Paris, 195 of the world’s leaders reached a historic agreement to lower-greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to stave off the most drastic effects of climate change—a momentous shift that will lay the groundwork for climate preparations across the globe.

Just a few weeks before the talks began, a new report showed that many Western states are unprepared to face the increasing weather-related risks posed by climate change. However, California is leading the nation in its efforts.

The States at Risk Project is a nationwide report card released last month by ICF International, a consulting firm, and Climate Central, a non-advocacy science and journalism organization. It’s the first-ever comprehensive assessment of threats to each of the 48 states in the continental U.S., such as extreme heat and drought that researchers predict will grow more severe in the future.

See an interactive map with each state’s status below.

Those findings matter because of the potential damage to human health, property and the economy. Taking steps to address these inevitable disasters cuts long-term costs, reduces impacts and ensures states and communities can more quickly rebound from losses, rather than continue to write big checks post-disaster.

In assessing those risks, the report’s authors hope to challenge the perceived lack of urgency among lawmakers and the general public that has helped thwart the policies needed to curb emissions. Human beings tend to be motivated by relatively short-term concerns, but climate change is a colossal, slow-moving, planetary scale problem—the worst of which will unfold not in our own generation, but in the next one or one after.

“One of the challenges of climate change is to make it personal and not something that’s an abstract, long-term concern,” says Richard Wiles, the senior vice president of Climate Central.

To help put climate change in concrete terms, researchers examined five major threats associated with warming global temperatures, using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: extreme heat, drought, wildfires, and inland and coastal flooding. Analysts then assessed how prepared states are to protect people and infrastructure against those risks by looking at what each state has already done in terms of reducing current threats, as well as what states have done to plan for the future. Those actions were evaluated in five major sectors of the economy, transportation, energy, health, water, communities, as well as states as a whole.

According to the report, states in the West face some of the greatest threats from climate change. California ranks second in wildfire and inland flooding risk, and third in extreme heat. Overall, the report found that extreme heat is the most pervasive threat to the lower 48 states. Heat wave days—which the National Weather Service defines as a period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and humid weather lasting two or more days—are projected to more than triple by 2050 in every state except Oregon.

The West also faces a growing wildfire threat concentrated in California, Arizona and Nevada, where wildlands and development converge. Increasing drought is another big concern: By 2050, all 11 Western states are projected to see their summer drought threat more than double, and in Washington, the threat level is expected to increase fourfold—the most of any state nationwide.

On the whole, the researchers found that states are prepared for the climate-related risks they face today. But 10-30 years down the road? Not so much. Arizona, for instance, completed a statewide plan in 2013 to help mitigate natural and human-caused disasters and recognizes that climate change could potentially increase some of those risks. But researchers found no evidence of funding, policies or guidelines to improve resilience against climate change-related extreme heat, drought or wildfire. Overall, the state received a C- grade for its preparedness. Neighboring Nevada fared even worse, with an F—the lowest in the West. The state has taken no action to plan for or implement measures for any of its future climate risks.

The lack of readiness for extreme heat days is particularly worrisome because of the direct threat to human health, says Wiles. That’s particularly true for people who work outdoors and those living without air conditioners, which includes the elderly and those living in poverty.

Many states have yet to begin even basic infrastructure planning required to address these future risks, like where to put cooling centers, temporary air-conditioned public spaces set up by local authorities to help people escape the heat.

Other states that received grades of C+ or lower include Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In general, coastal states scored better in their preparedness, with California leading the way with an A grade for its efforts. Those include the 2014 Safeguarding California document, one of the most comprehensive climate-change-adaptation planning documents in the country.

What also distinguishes California from, say, Arizona is the state’s willingness to explicitly consider climate change in their planning documents.

“There’s a subtlety there,” says Kathy Jacobs, who runs the Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions at the University of Arizona; she was not involved in writing the report.

“They feel like they’re prepared for the current risks but haven’t used the words climate change or climate risk,” she notes. In the future, as the threats from climate change become ever more pressing, that linguistic omission may be harder to ignore.

Sarah Tory is a correspondent for High Country News, where this story first appeared.

Published in Environment