Surface temperatures are heading toward levels that many scientists believe will pose a threat to both the natural world and to human civilization.

Source: Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year – The New York Times

By now you have, no doubt, seen the headline that 2014 is the warmest year since reliable record keeping began in 1880. This was jointly announced by two US agencies – NASA and NOAA – and corresponds with an announcement by a similar agency in Japan. I’m not going to retell that story here, but I do want to repeat some of the most alarming points.

• The 10 warmest years in more than a century have all occurred since 1997. That’s new high temperature record in 10 of the past 14 years.
• Average temperatures in the US have now exceeded the 20^th century average for 38 consecutive years.       That’s every year since 1976.       Think about it. No one born after 1976 has known a year colder than average.
• The last time the global temperatures fell below the 20^th century average for a given month was in 1985.
• The last full year of colder than average temperatures was 1976.
• The last record cold year was 1911. That’s 103 years ago. Now go back and look at the first bullet point.

Here’s a graph illustrating the trend.

For those who think that climate change is a liberal conspiracy, my suggestion is to take it up with the Pentagon. In 2012 the Pentagon formed a climate change working group. The result of their work is the DOD 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, which was released in October 2014 and accepts climate change as a fact. About the report, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that “Politics or ideology must not get in the way of sound planning.”

Today is the People’s Climate March here in New York City. Sponsored by peoplesclimate.org, the march here is joined by events in other major cities around the world, including London, Berlin, Bogota, Istanbul, Paris, Rio, Delhi, Melbourne, Johannesburg, Lagos, and Amsterdam. The marches and other events are intended to put pressure on international leaders who will meet at the United Nations Climate Summit 2014 on Tuesday to create the framework for a global agreement on emissions that (it is hoped) will be agreed upon in Paris late next year.

If that agreement occurs it will certainly be a case of politicians leading from behind. As I’ve noted here and here and here, researchers at organizations as diverse as NASA, NOAA, and IPCC have been telling us that the climate is changing now, that change is accelerating, and that we’ve already reached the tipping point in places like Antarctica’s Western Ice Sheet. And the news just keeps piling up. NOAA has announced that the combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was a record high for the month, at 1.35°F above the 20th century average of 60.1°F, topping the previous record set in 1998. The global land surface temperature was 1.78°F above the 20^th century average. Here’s a map of the global temperature variations compared to the base period of 1981-2010.

The August report means that globally, June through August 2014 is the 5^th hottest on record. The four periods that were hotter than this year have all occurred since 1998.

Since the founding of the IPCC in 1988 progress has been slow and halting (a history of UN climate actions can be found here). Let’s hope that strong action is agreed to this time.

Henry Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury, has on op-ed piece in today’s New York Times in which he looks at the potential costs of climate change from a risk management perspective. His conclusion is that the most conservative thing to do, the thing that will hold down the size of government and our national debt, is to act now to mitigate climate change while the costs are low and we have more time. His solution is a carbon tax, which he predicts will “empower the market to find the most efficient response” and will “create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.” He makes several comparisons to the risks that were ignored leading up to the economic crash of 2008 and makes a point of urging his fellow republicans to avoid the same mistakes that were made then.

Conservatives reaction to a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any other form of legislation to curb emissions is always to claim that it will be disastrous for industry and the economy. However two recent studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dispute that. As I’ve noted before, the IPCC estimates that the costs of stabilizing CO2 is 0.6% to 1.3% of GDP. Perhaps you distrust the United Nations, so let’s take a look at what the Chamber of Commerce has to say. The chamber commissioned a study that was released in May. Deeply opposed to any form of energy or environmental regulation, they commissioned a report from an organization with similar attitudes – the Energy Institute. Their findings estimate the cost of carbon regulation at $51 billion per year through 2030. Now to you and me that’s a lot of money, but in the $21.5 trillion U.S. economy that comes out to 0.2%. To put that into personal terms, it amounts to about $1.20 per day per household.

I’m not saying that there is no downside. Jobs will be lost in extractive industries like coal and oil. I’ve been unemployed. I know what it’s like to worry about paying rent or buying groceries, and I’d like to see those who lose their jobs get retraining and even subsidized moves so that they can go to where the new jobs are located. But, I don’t think we should smother the planet in CO2 to save jobs that are going to be lost anyway or to hang onto that $1.20 per household. The times they are a-changin’ whether we like it or not. The goal should be to control that change to the benefit of as many people as possible. Acting now makes that easier to do.