A Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Washington State

From The Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog

Thursday, December 19, 2019

A Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Washington State

Sometimes I muse about it–if I were in control of Washington State’s response to global warming, what would I do?  What would a rational, science-based approach look like, devoid of the hype and politics that is hindering progress today?
I would start by noting few principles:
1.  The implications of global warming for the Northwest is serious (more extreme rainfall, warmer temperatures, less mountain snowpack, rising sea level in place) but it won’t be existential and changes will initially be relatively small, accelerating later in the century.

2.  Scientists and politicians must communicate the truth–the best estimates of our science.   Exaggeration and hyping impacts “to get people to do the right thing” is both unethical and counterproductive.  It produces unnecessary fear or turning away from the problem.
3.  The effort MUST be bipartisan.  Nothing major is ever accomplished by one party, something particularly true of our divided state and nation.  We must not mix political goals (e.g., social engineering) with dealing with what is essentially a scientific/technical problem (increasing concentrations of one gas).

Last presidential election.  Red is Republican.  Blue Democrat.

4.  Few people are willing to sacrifice today to stop global warming tomorrow (including climate scientists with huge travel-related carbon footprints).  Thus, all steps should provide benefits in the short run or not produce large additional costs.
5.  Global warming and its impacts will be solved with science and technology.

My Plan
My approach to the problem can be divided into three parts:
1.  A research program to better understand the implications of global warming for the region.
2.  Promoting resilience and adaptation
3.  Carbon emissions reduction (also known as mitigation)
1.  Research:  Understanding the implications of global warming for the Northwest
Global warming produced by increasing levels of CO2 is already influencing our area, although they are subtle at this point.   Since additional warming is inevitable, it is important that we understand the expected changes and the associated uncertainties.  This will give us the information we need for adaptation/resilience that will reduce impacts.
There has been some research by UW and NOAA scientists regarding the projected regional effects of global warming that provides a broad outline of expected changes, but MUCH more research is needed.  For example, we need to understand the uncertainties in current global model forecasts and run high-resolution climate models to better understand the local implications of global warming.   
I have been working quite a bit on this as part of my group’s research, securing some support from Amazon to run many regional climate model simulations.  The results are fascinating with some surprises (see example below, which show drying in the lee of major mountains, but wetter everywhere else).  Much more needs to be done (and unfortunately the Amazon grant has ended).  Hopefully, we will find more support to do the analysis and continue such simulations (if you want to help, go here).

map_diff_203001_206012_annual_PREC_Z1

To summarize, task number one is to do the necessary research to gain a better idea of what will happen during the next century over the Northwest as the planet warms, and how this warming will vary with different emissions amounts.   Support of such research should be bipartisan.
2.  Adaptation and Resilience
As noted above, substantial warming of the planet and region is inevitable, with implications not only for  temperature, but precipitation, snowpack, and flooding as well.  The atmosphere hasn’t caught up with the CO2 up there right now and global emissions are still rising rapidly.  And there are the associated problems of wildfires, air quality, water supply, and agriculture.   We need to take steps to protect our people and economy.
Importantly we are not adapted and resilient to our CURRENT climate.  Flooding has caused I-5 to close, a landslide has destroyed Oso, Washington, dry summers (e.g. 2015) have contributed in wildfires and agricultural losses, and minor rain events have resulted in massive sewer outflows in King County (there are many more examples).  To a great degree, by making ourselves resilient to current weather/climate threats, we will do much to protect ourselves from the impacts of climate change (and vice versa!).

Importantly, work on resilience can be bipartisan.  Some example include:
a.  Invest in the infrastructure to prevent sewage overflows during heavy rain events. In addition, treat more of the water draining off our roadways  This will also help improve the health of Puget Sound, and thus the survival of salmon and orcas.

b.  Begin a massive project to repair our overgrown east-side forests.  This will including thinning, removal of slash and debris, and bringing back fire (prescribed burns).  It is estimated that 2.5-3 million acres need attention and the costs will be in the billions.   Thinning/prescribed fire is the only way to restore the ecology of our dry-side forests and to prevent some of the huge catastrophic fires evident during the last decade.  What we have been doing the past decade is pittance compared to what is necessary.  A thinning/healthy forest program could also be an economic boon for eastern Washington, and will reduce the big smoke events.    A win-win for everyone.

c.  Building more reservoir capacity to serve agriculture in eastern Washington. Global warming will increase annual precipitation in our area, but lessen snowpack that supplies water later in the summer; thus, water must be stored in winter in expanded reservoirs to deal with the problem.  Some efforts have been started in this direction with the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.  A substantial effort to increase storage capacity is needed.

d.   A rational plan for selling/trading water rights is required, in contrast to the ineffective junior/senior rights approach of today that results in wasted water.  Furthermore, the crop mix in eastern WA must shift to agriculture that is less water intensive, and the leaky, poorly constructed water distribution infrastructure of eastern WA must be fixed.  Less hay.

e.   The state must begin moving people away from vulnerable locations susceptible to flooding and landslides, such as areas next to rivers or adjacent to potentially unstable slopes.  This will be costly, since property will need to be purchased.

Does Big Bend, Washington make sense?

f.  Development in fire-prone areas on the wildland/urban interface should be stopped, and isolated homes bought out.  Such areas should NOT have protective services that risk the lives of young firefighters.

This should not be encouraged.

g.  Crops should be developed that are more heat and drought resistantWashington State University is working on this approach actively.

3.  Mitigation:  Reduction of Emissions of CO2
     Mitigation is the most controversial aspect of the global warming problem, since CO2 knows no state or national boundary and costs can be immense for even small reductions in CO2 emissions.  Furthermore, Washington State, rich in hydrogeneration resources, is one of best states in the union for low-carbon electricity, so any improvements would be modest.   Transportation is our biggest source of carbon emissions, and our potential for solar and wind generation is limited by our cloudy northern climate and modest areas of consistent wind.  And folks rarely talk about the IMMENSE carbon footprints associated with our major industries, such as Boeing and Amazon.

Huge carbon footprint that politicians and others don’t talk about

The population of our state is clearly cool carbon taxes and fees, with two voter initiatives defeated and the legislation unable to pass cap and trade legislation.  This is not going to change.  And even if we passed such measures, the impacts on global carbon emissions would be small at best.  That is not argument against them…everyone has to do their part if it makes sense.

With all that said, there is much that we can do that does makes economic sense and would provide multiple benefits immediately.

1.  More nuclear power.  Although hydropower is king in the Northwest, there is still substantial fossil fuel use, including coal (about 13% of electricity generation).  Adding an additional nuclear power facility could fill this gap.  Many environmental activists are against nuclear power, worried about safety and waste.  But new nuclear power plant designs are inherently safe and waste can be dealt with responsibly.  Consider France, where most of their power is from nuclear.  Turning against nuclear power is one of the great mistakes of the climate activist movement.
And there is something else:  fusion power, which does not have the waste problem, is probably only a decade or so away.  Dozens of companies are working the problem (including Helion here in the Northwest).  Don’t believe that fusion will be available within 10 years?  Make it 30 years.  But once it is available the whole game changes.  We have an unlimited source of clean energy.  And with energy we can also pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.  Problem solved.


2.  Natural gas for marine applications.
Most marine traffic burns oil.  And not just any oil, but dirty bunker fuel, that is highly polluting.  You can see the smoke with your own eyes when one of the cruise ships comes into Seattle.    But there is a cost-effective option: liquified natural gas (LNG), which burns clean and produces less CO2 for the same energy.  So we need to move marine traffic to LNG, particularly for coastal applications (like Puget Sound).  Unfortunately, some climate advocacy groups like Seattle’s 350.org are against LNG and doing what they can to prevent the LNG facility in Tacoma.  They are hurting our attempts to lessen local air pollution and to reduce CO2 emissions.

3.  Improved agricultural practices to restore carbon to our soils
There is tremendous potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere by restoring organic matter to our depleted soils. UW Professor David Montgomery has written several excellent books describing the potential of carbon addition to soils through improved agricultural practices, and a local company, Nori is working on such agricultural carbon removal using a market-based approach. A substantial amount of CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere this way, while improving our soils. Another win-win.

4.  Expand rail and mass transit much more quickly
Let me be blunt–the rate of expansion of rail transportation in the Northwest is pathetically slow and ineffective.   The very limited Sound Transit system won’t be finished until around 2040.  Crazy slow.  Sounder trains to Tacoma and Everett are infrequent and unreliable, with even modest rain causing slides that close down rail traffic.  Light rail from Seattle to the airport is horrendously slow, with too many stops.  Our region needs to get serious about rail, with frequent service up and down the Sound, with more east-west routes.  We also need rail service into the mountains (imagine going skiing by rail as in Europe?)  What takes a decade in China takes 50 years in the Northwest… assuming it even gets done.
An obvious and powerful approach has been neglected–running commuter boats up and down the Sound and across Lake Washington.  Ironically, such service used to be available–the old mosquito fleet.  Now that our roads are locking up, marine transportation is needed more than ever.  Seattle can be the Venice of the U.S (without the flooding).

1909

5.  Reduce traffic
The increasing traffic in our region has a huge carbon footprint, and there are immediate steps that could reduce it.  In Seattle and elsewhere, some municipalities have deliberately throttled traffic by reducing the number of lanes.  A huge mistake that has contributed to fuel-burning traffic jams.  Traffic light timing needs to optimized on more streets to foster better flow.  And then there are the increased number of accidents due to distracted drivers playing with their phones, food, and other distractions.  More effective steps are needed to deal with such distracted driving, which already illegal in most localities.  Better law enforcement, requirement that smartphone texting and other interactions will not work in moving vehicles.  We need creative solutions. Less traffic, lives saved, less carbon emission.   Cars are not going to disappear from our roads–they will simply go electric.


6.   Most important of all, science and technology development
Washington State is only a small part of the global warming problem through our direct emissions, with our indirect emissions (e.g., Boeing jets, Amazon worldwide transportation infrastructure) probably being larger.  If we are REALLY going to make a big contribution to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, there is only one way to do so–to develop the technologies the will result in less emissions, from battery technology, to fusion, to better agriculture, to improved renewables, and more.  Developing the technology of sequestration (pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere will also be important.  In fact, I suspect the solution to the global warming problem will end up fusion power coupled with sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere, injecting it deep into the earth.

A local company, Carbon Engineering, is working on industrial size carbon capture facilities.

This blog is getting long, and there is many more things that could be done regarding mitigation.  There is much we can do, with some approaches having nearly immediate benefits (less traffic, more rail, less pollution).
The optimistic bottom line.  There are so many local politicians, media outlets, and activist groups that are painting a depressing, fearful picture of our future regarding global warming.  They are simply wrong.  There is so much that can be done to prepare and mitigate global warming, and the impacts will me more gradual than some are suggesting.  This is a scientific/technological problem that can be solved in a rational way, together.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Russell
December 20, 2019 3:35 pm

I stopped reading the approach when number 1 action was “more research”.
The Research Industry has become the monster.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Russell
December 20, 2019 5:12 pm

If he’s saying we need more research, then the science clearly isn’t settled, which means his statement that it will get inevitably warmer due to CO2 emissions sometime in the vague future, is illogical.

December 20, 2019 3:46 pm

Cliff,
You lost me when you advocate I give up my car for a 1/4 mile walk to a train station in the snow, rain, or blazing sun through drug gang infested neighborhoods, only to have to seat with criminals, homeless and the insane on government subsidized trains that do not go where I need to go in any reasonable amount of time.

Further, although trains use less energy per-passenger-mile than cars, the buses that ARE REQUIRED TO FEED THEM use much more energy than cars, so systems like Portland’s use more energy per passenger-mile than cars.
Transit also takes twice as much time to get people to work than cars. Have you looked at any actual transit data?
See DebunkingPortland.com

As to the CO2 scam, see DebunkingClimate.com

Roger Knights
Reply to  JimK
December 21, 2019 9:28 pm

“Light rail” has been a failure everywhere, but (in a play world, like building a model (toy) railroad layout) it provides emotionally kicks to would-be “social engineers.”

Cars have recently become more attractive for performing ancillary driving (to unfamiliar or rarely visited destination) with the arrival of driver route-driving apps like Garmins, and driver-assist features (especially automatic parking). And cars have become more reliable and longer-lasting, as well as more feature-risch and luxurious inside. Their efficiency and cleanliness has increased notably, and is continuing to do so: Toyota’s new Dynamic Force engine gets 40 MPG; Mazda’s new Skyactiv-X engine gets 45.

Attractive new serial hybrids like Nissan’s e-energy series cost less than the Prius and provide good milage. The ones coming next year, or late this year, from the Toyota/Mazda JV new factory in Alabama, will possibly get 65 MPG. Fully electric cars will not be much cleaner, all things considered, and can’t be used by the half of the population that lacks a garage, and the half of the remaining half that can’t afford one.

Robert of Texas
December 20, 2019 4:52 pm

I got an idea… There is a very high probability that a tsunami will hit populated regions in Washington State over the next 100 years…how about building a sea wall to help reduce the extent of that expected future disaster? If the sea wall can withstand a 50 foot wave, it should be able to stand up to a 12 inch increase in water levels over the next 100 years.

Oh, and stop building next to the ocean…that would help out a lot!

Guess practical solutions are too hard, lets force the entire world to stop using energy instead. Not “me” mind you, just everyone else.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 21, 2019 9:32 pm

“how about building a sea wall to help reduce the extent of that expected future disaster? If the sea wall can withstand a 50 foot wave, it should be able to stand up to a 12 inch increase in water levels over the next 100 years.”

It won’t be nearly that high, due to the steep drop-off in the sea floor away from the coast. But a sea wall, even in places where it can be built at low cost and/or provide a high benefit, would be worthwhile.

December 20, 2019 7:03 pm

The difficult truth is that Seattle … Washington … Portland and northward terrains are unsuitable for human habitation. Situated between the rising seas, and dangerous Cascadian volcanism, the real solution is that Seattle, Portland, and everything in between needs to be de-populated for safety.

Hivemind
December 21, 2019 2:41 am

“3. Carbon emissions reduction (also known as mitigation)”

Not correct. Reducing emissions is known as prevention. Mitigation would be things like building sea walls to prevent storm damage, making electricity cheap enough so that pensioners could afford air conditioning. You know, the sort of things that nobody is doing.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hivemind
December 21, 2019 9:34 pm

“Not correct. Reducing emissions is known as prevention. ”

Wrong. Reducing CO2 emissions is (universally within the climate-controversy realm) KNOWN AS mitigation.

John Endicott
Reply to  Roger Knights
December 23, 2019 5:49 am

You are both wrong. Reducing emissions is (universally within the sane, rational realm) is known as *a waste of time, energy, and resources* 😉

Greg in Houston
December 21, 2019 7:02 am

“Nothing major is ever accomplished by one party”

Please tell Nancy

John Tillman
December 21, 2019 12:56 pm

If Chinese physicists are to be believed, commercial fusion is indeed closer than most suppose:

https://futurism.com/the-byte/china-artificial-sun-operational-2020

Tom Tom
December 21, 2019 2:22 pm

“Since additional warming is inevitable”
Says Who?

Jake J
December 21, 2019 5:18 pm

There’s no science there. If there was, they’d have long ago followed the scientific method and deep-sixed the AGW hypothesis for failure to live up to its predictions. No one should ever confuse “Seattle nice” with reason. Think of Mass as a climate cultist with a smiley-face sticker, and you won’t be too far off.

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 7:37 pm

Here’s an inspiring 12-minute video on 5 innovative clean energy sources; “5 amazing renewable energy ideas”: Made in 2017 (at least one of the segments):
https://youtu.be/JKXnQnaiqI8

1: carbon fiber heat transmission from the mantle;
2: turbulent vortex turbines for small rivers http://www.turbulent.BE ;
3. Altaeros Energies — wind turbine in the center of a blimp, “the bat” [should be called the donut] — enables power provision to remote areas and for disaster relief. At height, winds are stronger and more consistent, so output is twice that of an ordinary turbine. Also offers a platform for wireless Internet and weather monitoring. designed for rapid deployment. http://www.altaerosenergies.com
4. Dynamic tidal power. Coalition of Dutch and Chinese. A long barrier parallel to the shore with a T at the end (s?) funnels water into 2000 smart turbines. High output is promised.
5. Floating solar. The Hydrelio System. Already in operation.

At the end, links to three videos on innovative similar stuff appear.

Items 1 & 3 seem the most promising.

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 7:50 pm

CBS, 60 Minutes, Lesley Stahl, Jan. 6, 2019 show on biofuel pioneer Medoff. H/T Skip181sg

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?redir_token=qUZwhUDpUaj4n1kl3arotTaCTNR8MTU0ODI5MDU4MUAxNTQ4MjA0MTgx

What Masterman helped implement was Medoff’s novel idea of using these large blue machines called electron accelerators to break apart nature’s chokehold on the valuable sugars inside plant life – or biomass. Machines like these are typically used to strengthen materials such as wiring and cable. Medoff’s invention was to use the accelerator the opposite way – to break biomass apart.
…………
His inventive use of the accelerators caught the attention of investors who saw a potential goldmine in the technology.They gave Medoff’s company – Xyleco – hundreds of millions of dollars, allowing him to scale up and build this factory – IN MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON – so he could turn his invention into reality. It’s scheduled to be fully operational this spring.

Here, agricultural residue, like these corn cobs [OR CUTTINGS FROM THINNED FORESTS?] [HOPEFULLY DONE BY ANKLE-BRACELETED CONVICTS, TO CUT COSTS], is trucked in from nearby farms, ground up, blasted by the electron accelerator and then combined with a proprietary enzyme mix.

This process, Medoff’s remarkable invention, releases plant sugars that he’s now using to make products he claims will solve some of the world’s most intractable problems, affecting not just the environment but also our health. One of the plant sugars is called xylose and Medoff says it could reduce obesity and diabetes, since it is consumable, and low in calories.

Craig Masterman: Xylose is called wood sugar And it has an unusual property that your oral bacteria cannot use it. So it won’t decay your teeth.
…………
With the investor funds, Medoff also opened a $45 million testing facility in Wakefield, Massachusetts, a far cry from the garage. And he hired more than 70 scientists and engineers who have come up with a sugar-based product aimed at another impervious problem, some call it a plague, the accumulation of plastic debris.
……………..
Perhaps Medoff’s most consequential discovery is how to extract the plant sugars and convert them into to environmentally-friendly biofuels: ethanol, gasoline and jet fuel.
………………
Medoff’s ethanol is much better than regular corn ethanol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions – 77 percent better, according to a study that was independently reviewed.
………………
Robert Armstrong, the former head of MIT’s chemical engineering department, joined Xyleco’s board of directors after Medoff told him about the electron beam accelerator, his inventive way of breaking down biomass.
……………….
A possible 30 percent dent in the petroleum market, according to a report by the Department of Energy. But the question is: can Marshall Medoff scale up his operation enough to compete with the oil industry?
……………
John Jennings: It won’t turn off oil and gas overnight, obviously. It won’t turn off coal. It won’t turn off nuclear. It won’t turn off all the other sources of energy. But it will find its place. And I think it will find it relatively quickly because of all the boxes that it ticks.

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 7:54 pm

Could the mothballed, cost-overrun and terminated WHOOPS (?) nuclear plants of former governor Dixy Lee Ray be made use of in some way?

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 7:57 pm

An additional reason for moving people out of the coastal Pacific fringe is the tsunami from “the really big one” that is likely due within 50 years. See:

“The Really Big One: An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when.” By Kathryn Schulz, New Yorker magazine, July 20, 2015 issue
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 9:41 pm

Here’s a no-regrets measure: strengthen the electrical grid. (Against hacking and Carrington events.) Another one: require gas stations to have back-up generators, so they can stay open in emergencies when the grid is down.

Regarding Amazon’s delivery system. It creates far fewer emissions to have one van make 100 deliveries per day than to have 100 customers do 100 product pick-ups. (Anyway, Amazon has committed to buying 100,000 pure-electric (BEV) delivery vans from Rivian.)

Roger Knights
December 21, 2019 9:47 pm

“Most marine traffic burns oil. And not just any oil, but dirty bunker fuel, that is highly polluting.”

The international regulation that kicks in in 2020 will ban or greatly curtail its use.

“Cars are not going to disappear from our roads–they will simply go electric.”

Ha-ha. See my comment upthread at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/20/a-science-based-approach-to-dealing-with-climate-change-in-washington-state/#comment-2876442

Johann Wundersamer
January 1, 2020 9:23 pm

“This blog is getting long, and there is many more things that could be done regarding mitigation. There is much we can do, with some approaches having nearly immediate benefits (less traffic, more rail, less pollution).

The optimistic bottom line.

There are so many local politicians, media outlets, and activist groups that are painting a depressing, fearful picture of our future regarding global warming. They are simply wrong. There is so much that can be done to prepare and mitigate global warming, and the impacts will me more gradual than some are suggesting. This is a scientific/technological problem that can be solved in a rational way, together.”

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNSKR_ZhUghpTFAp-tAyzBr6plkqRw%3A1577942227060&ei=03wNXqenA-WWjga8uK-gAg&q=somewhere+over+the+rainbow+judy+garland&gs_ssp=eJzj4tFP1zcsNjAtzsooNDdgBAAfyQQD&oq=somewhere+over+the+rainbow+judy&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.