US scientists’ consensus – Climate change is already having major effects on ecosystems and species

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/

Emerging consensus shows climate change is already having major effects on ecosystems and species

December 2012. Plant and animal species are shifting their geographic ranges and the timing of their life events – such as flowering, laying eggs or migrating – at faster rates than researchers documented just a few years ago, according to a technical report on biodiversity and ecosystems used as scientific input for the 2013 Third National Climate Assessment.

The report, Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services, synthesizes the scientific understanding of the way climate change is affecting ecosystems, ecosystem services and the diversity of species, as well as what strategies might be used by natural resource practitioners to decrease current and future risks. More than 60 US federal, academic and other scientists, including the lead authors from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Wildlife Federation and Arizona State University in Tempe, authored the assessment.

Wide-ranging change to ecosystems
"These geographic range and timing changes are causing cascading effects that extend through ecosystems, bringing together species that haven't previously interacted and creating mismatches between animals and their food sources," said Nancy Grimm, a scientist at ASU and a lead author of the report.

Other key findings of the report include:

Changes in precipitation and extreme weather events can overwhelm the ability of natural systems to reduce or prevent harm to people from these events. For example, more frequent heavy rainfall events increase the movement of nutrients and pollutants to downstream ecosystems, likely resulting not only in ecosystem change, but also in adverse changes in the quality of drinking water and a greater risk of waterborne-disease outbreaks. Changes in winter have big and surprising effects on ecosystems and their services. Changes in soil freezing, snow cover and air temperature affect the ability of ecosystems to store carbon, which, in turn, influences agricultural and forest production. Seasonally snow-covered regions are especially susceptible to climate change because small precipitation or temperature shifts can cause large ecosystem changes. Longer growing seasons and warmer winters are already increasing the likelihood of pest outbreaks, leading to tree mortality and more intense, extensive fires. Decreased or unreliable snowfall for winter sports and recreation will likely cause high future economic losses. The ecosystem services provided by coastal habitats are especially vulnerable to sea-level rise and more severe storms. The Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are most vulnerable to the loss of coastal protection services provided by wetlands and coral reefs. Along the Pacific coast, long-term dune erosion caused by increasing wave heights is projected to cause problems for communities and for recreational beach activities. However, other kinds of recreation will probably improve due to better weather, with the net effect being that visitors and tourism dollars will shift away from some communities in favour of others. Climate change adaptation strategies are vital for the conservation of diverse species and effective natural resource policy and management. As more adaptive management approaches are developed, resource managers can enhance the country's ability to respond to the impacts of climate change through forward-looking and climate science-informed goals and actions. Ecological monitoring needs to be improved and better coordinated among federal and state agencies to ensure the impacts of climate change are adequately monitored and to support ecological research, management, assessment and policy. Existing tracking networks in the United States will need to improve coverage through time and in geographic area to detect and track climate-induced shifts in ecosystems and species.

Read more at http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/us-warming.html#cr

View the original article here

Job Creation and the Effects of Regulation

A follow-up to our follow-up on a Washington Post article that dismissed the effects of increased U.S. oil production on global crude oil markets. The story also took shots at the oil and natural gas industry’s ability to create jobs, as well as industry assertions about the potential effect of a new gasoline standard on refineries.

Let’s start with jobs. A Wood Mackenzie study released last fall said that with the right policies the oil and natural gas industry could create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030. Here’s what the job-creation growth looks like in a chart from that study:

As it has done in previous articles, the Post suggested the projection isn’t valid because it includes direct, indirect and “induced” jobs – “everything from day-care workers to valets to rocket scientists.” We discussed that here and here. Kyle Isakower, API vice president for policy analysis:

“Estimates include induced economic benefits, as do the administration and its supporters’ estimates of green jobs created by the stimulus package. Including estimates of induced employment effects is a common practice in economic modeling. Increased economic activity in one sector provides more income to the economy that will have a ripple effect in other sectors.”

Isakower continues:

“Increased oil and gas exploration requires more steel for well casings. More steel means more steel foundry workers. As the steel mill expands and hires workers, those workers’ incomes increase and they spend more on other goods and services – housing, cars, food, etc. So when a new sandwich shop opens up across the street from the steel mill, those workers hold real jobs that would not exist without the increase in oil and gas development. I doubt any policymaker wants to tell any of these people that their jobs aren’t real, or that they don’t matter.”

This isn’t theory. It’s happening in states including North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio, where oil and natural gas development is creating boom conditions in state and regional economies.

Now, as for the potential connection between increased regulation and refinery closures, the Post wrote:

“API has also said new EPA standards will mean high gas costs. An API study said standards for low-sulfur gasoline would add 12 to 25 cents a gallon to the price and force the shutdown of four to seven refineries. However, a new study by API’s consultants, Baker & O’Brien, says EPA’s new standards would add six to nine cents a gallon and that no refineries would have to close. George R. Schink, managing director at Navigant Economics, testified at a congressional hearing that the standards would add 2.1 cents a gallon.”

Isakower said the Baker & O’Brien findings changed because EPA, which originally was considering lower sulfur and gasoline volatility (or RVP) requirements – leading to the 12 to 15 cents per gallon estimate of increased production costs – later decided it would not include an RVP reduction:

“We asked Baker & O’Brien to revise their study to estimate increased costs for the lower sulfur requirement alone, which resulted in the 6 to 9 cents estimate. Given EPA’s lack of transparency in the early stages of this rulemaking, and their change in regulatory plans, the differences in Baker & O’Brien’s estimates are to be expected.”

And Schink? Isakower:

“(His) testimony that the costs for gasoline production would only increase 2.1 cents per gallon simply  averaged Baker & O’Brien’s cost estimate across all refineries. However, the Baker & O’Brien study estimates the marginal cost for those refineries that must upgrade to meet the new requirements, so his analysis is not directly comparable to the Baker & O’Brien marginal cost estimate. Refiners compete with one another – those that do not have to upgrade will not share in the cost of the upgrades for the facilities that do, as Schink’s testimony suggests.”

View the original article here