Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy - Dedicated to Proactive Approaches

If the US could redo its entire industrial base in one year for WWII, we can do this

Thomas Lovejoy, President of the H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment since 2002, is not afraid of pushing for grand changes. When first interviewed by Washington International a decade ago, he foresaw the coming environmental calamity. Looking at the scientific evidence of global warming and climate change today, he says, “We need a major plan in place by the end of the decade. If the US could redo its entire industrial base in one year for WWII, we can do this.”

Lovejoy is no stranger to the intersection of science and politics. Prior to coming to the Heinz Center, he served as the World Bank’s Chief Biodiversity Advisor and Lead Specialist for Environment for Latin America and the Caribbean, Senior Advisor to the President of the United Nations Foundation, Assistant Secretary and Counselor to the Secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior, and Executive Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund–U.S.

He conceived the idea for the Minimum Critical Size of Ecosystems project (a joint project between the Smithsonian and Brazil’s INPA), originated the concept of debt-for-nature swaps, and is the founder of the public television series Nature. In 2001 he was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. Lovejoy also served on science and environmental councils or committees under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

The Heinz Center, established in December 1995 in honor of Senator H. John Heinz III (R-PA), is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution dedicated to improving the scientific and economic foundation for environmental policy through collaboration among industry, environmental organizations, academia, and government. For Lovejoy, the Center “creates a safe place where groups can work together without rushing out to issue press releases. This means the process is longer and messier, but in the end, the ideas stick. There is not much backwash” when all interested parties have been involved from the start.

The Center has three main project areas. The first is titled “Indicators of the State of the Nation’s Ecosystems”. While governmental agencies monitored policies in a given region, says Lovejoy, “No one was keeping track of the big picture.” The Indicators program combines information from various agencies to paint the state of regional ecosystems. The Center, he says, “is now trying to work down to the state level and up to the global level,” changing the focus on that big picture.

The second program addresses Global Change, addressing issues such as bio-fuels, acidification of the oceans, ecosystem thresholds and, working with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IASA) in Vienna, undertaking a world energy assessment. The Center’s third program area is Coasts and Fisheries, interested in the development of the nation’s coasts—“all of them, not just the Gulf Coast or the northeastern seaboard.”

It will take a combination of actions to combat climate change and its effects, Lovejoy says. “There is no silver bullet. We need a ‘Manhattan Project’ for energy, to develop non-carbon emitting fuel sources; a carbon ‘cap and trade’ system; and a greater emphasis on public transport and bicycle use.” Possible renewable energy sources include solar, wind and bio-fuels; coal, as long as the resultant CO2 can be sequestered; and nuclear, all developed in conjunction with greater energy efficiency. There also needs to be a change in land use. A major reforestation program should be undertaken, as 22% of the atmospheric CO2 increase per year comes from burning the tropical rain forests. Changing from traditional to “no-till” farming would also build up carbon levels in the soil.

All of these ideas are feasible, but the main obstacle is inertia. Many in power, Lovejoy says, see the changes needed to counteract climate change “as a problem for the economy, rather than as an opportunity for the economy.” He notes, “the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to change.”

Citing the Stern Report, issued by the UK government last fall, he admits that making changes will cost, but less than not changing. (The Stern Report, authored by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%, but taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product.) Referring to the “cap and trade” system, Lovejoy notes that it was invented in part by Sen. Heinz as part of the Clean Air Act, and ended up being much cheaper than originally forecast: the cost of sulfur exchange ended up being 5% of the original estimate.

Internationally, Lovejoy says, the US “must partner with China and/or India to let them achieve their energy goals without hurting the world.” China, especially, is important. Lovejoy says that there needs to be “a joint project with China regarding their use of coal. If necessary, we should give them the technology” to either burn coal more cleanly or to use alternate energy sources. “We can’t afford not to.” If these massive CO2 increases and their resultant climate changes “ripple through, they will rip the environmental fabric supporting human society.”

To underscore this point, Lovejoy refers to a chart in Climate Change and Biodiversity, the book he co-edited with Lee Hannah (Yale University Press, 2005), showing the history of earth’s global average temperature.

“If you look at the global average temperature for the past 10,000 years, you’ll see that it’s nearly constant. What does that mean? It means that for all of man’s history—going back to the dawn of our oldest civilizations—we have never faced severe climate change.”

Lovejoy points out that “the sooner you get proactive, the more cooperation you have politically. The biggest danger is letting political issues, like the Middle East or North Korea, distract us from the bigger picture and issues. The world is desperately in need of the US resuming its leadership in world ecology.”

There are a “huge number” of bills before Congress this session dealing with climate change, Lovejoy says. The frequency of talks on the subject is up, “now that Congress is having hearings again.” Lovejoy even cites Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Ind-CT), who says that should one of the bills pass Congress, he thinks President Bush would sign it.

Lovejoy stresses that “the natural world is the most sensitive thing to climate change,” but that there is a general lack of awareness of the physical effects of climate change. As an immediate example of these effects, Lovejoy cites the National Arbor Day Foundation, which has produced a new map for gardeners showing changes in planting zones. “This,” he says, “is like publishing a ‘Version 2 of the St. James Bible’”. (See the NADF’s website: www.arborday.org/media/zones.cfm, with links to hardiness zone changes between 1990 and 2006.)

He adds another, personally resonating example. “My great-grandfather chaired the commission which designed the first New York City subway system. Now, if a category 2 storm were to go up the New York harbor, it would flood that same subway system.” This is not some grand, hidden secret. “Wall Street firms have nothing in the lower levels of buildings in Manhattan. They know.”

Lovejoy says that there are “still some deniers, but the science of climate change is long past the point of question. Those who try to deny it are either ideologically blinded or manacled in some other kind of way.” The chemistry of carbon dioxide, he points out, was worked out in the late 19th century by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, whose calculations were remarkably accurate.

“It is important,” he says, “that everyone be part of the solution.” He suggests that everyone do their own energy profile to see how they can do better—and save money doing better. “We must have a more respectful attitude to energy and the environment. If the Pentagon has solar panels, why not us?”