15/09/2018

Land Conservation Steps Into Limelight As Key Climate Change Fix

ReutersGregory Scruggs

SAN FRANCISCO - From U.S. states to retail giant Walmart, governments and businesses pledged to protect natural lands that help brake global warming at an international climate summit this week.
Important ecosystems like Brazil’s Cerrado savanna and Malaysia’s Borneo rainforest also got a boost from donors allocating new money for their conservation.
Important ecosystems like Brazil's Cerrado savanna and Malaysia's Borneo rainforest also got a boost from donors allocating new money for their conservation. (Image Credit: Twitter)

Cutting down trees to grow crops or for timber, and other uses of land for food production and forestry, contribute about a quarter of global climate-changing emissions each year.
But efforts to keep peatlands, forests, mangroves and other vegetation intact receive only 3 percent of global climate finance, according to conservation group WWF.
“Land has emerged as a priority topic,” WWF’s climate lead Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, former Peruvian environment minister, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation on the sidelines of the meeting.
At the Global Climate Action Summit, which ends Friday, 17 U.S. states pledged to measure the carbon storage capacity of their forests, and incorporate land conservation into their greenhouse gas reduction plans by 2020.
States like Hawaii have already begun to restore native forests on former farmland in order to capture more carbon, like the 5,500-acre (2,225-hectare) Pu’u Mali Forest.
“We have more agricultural land than we need to produce more of the food that we want to eat,” Hawaii Governor David Ige said by telephone from Honolulu.
Other states view conservation of natural land as essential, but they flagged the lack of financial incentives to discourage landowners from selling up to real estate developers.
“The greatest threat to the Washington state environment is the conversion of working forests and lands,” Washington’s Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz said in an interview.
Globally, 18.8 million acres (7.6 million hectares) of forests are converted for agriculture, livestock or human infrastructure use annually, WWF says.
Franz also highlighted the threat posed to forests by wildfires, which some scientists believe are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change.
More than 7 million acres have burned in close to 48,000 wildfires in the United States so far in 2018, according to the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center.
To help local governments manage land more effectively, new money is starting to flow.
The Global Environment Facility announced $500 million on Thursday for a new program to help farmers and ranchers increase their yields without encroaching on more forest land.
And the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force, composed of state leaders from Brazil, Indonesia and the United States, announced $25 million in grants for forest restoration.
U.S. retailer Walmart Inc adopted “science-based targets” to reduce emissions from its supply chain, and said it would hire environmental groups to vet the forest-friendly credentials of its suppliers for materials like palm oil and wood pulp.
These pledges will contribute to a new goal announced at the summit of providing 30 percent of the planet’s needed climate change solutions through land-based measures by 2030.
“Countries must advance more of these conversations to set science-based targets and develop land-based solutions that will help mitigate the worst effects of climate change,” said WWF’s Pulgar-Vidal.

Links

When Trees Make Rain: Could Restoring Forests Help Ease Drought In Australia?

ABC ScienceNick Kilvert

If you've ever walked in a rainforest or even a greenhouse, you'll know that the air inside is heavy with moisture.
This phenomenon is caused by trees releasing water vapour through pores in their leaves called stomata.
We also know that many big forests, and rainforests in particular, tend to get more rain than surrounding areas — hence the name.
Although people have guessed that forests could help make rain, it's always been a chicken-or-egg scenario: do forests make rain or do areas with high rainfall grow forests?
An expanding body of evidence supports the idea that forests, in the right conditions, not only make rain locally but also hundreds of kilometres away.
In Australia, we've cut down nearly 40 per cent of our forests in the past 200 years, leaving a fragmented landscape in their place.
In Queensland, more than one million hectares have been cleared since 2012, and New South Wales and the Northern Territory have also recently increased logging.
So if forests create rain, and we've chopped down almost half, have we affected the amount of rainfall we get?
And is there any evidence that returning more land to forest could bring more rain?

What's the evidence that trees make rain?
In the southern Amazon, the tree canopy turns a light shade of green as trees put out fresh shoots two to three months before the onset of the official wet season.
Around the same time, researchers have noticed that the forest tends to build up low-lying cloud and rains increase.
Last year, researchers showed that the "greening" of the forest and increased atmospheric moisture were connected, and they used a hydrogen isotope to do it.
The deuterium isotope appears in vapour from trees in the same concentration as in groundwater.
Isotopes are two or more forms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and therefore have different atomic mass.
When water evaporates from the ocean, the heavier hydrogen isotope deuterium is usually left behind in favour of the lighter protium isotope.
Water vapour produced by trees, on the other hand, has a much higher deuterium concentration.
The researchers used NASA's Aura satellite to analyse the level of deuterium present in the vapour above the Amazon during the early build up of rain.
They found the increased water vapour was almost certainly coming off the forest.
"[The level of deuterium was] too high to be explained by water vapor from the ocean," University of California researcher Rong Fu said at the time.
Later toward the wet season proper, the concentration of deuterium in the atmosphere above the forest reduced, as moisture was transported from the coast by increasing winds.
The researchers suspect that early rain from the forest triggers atmospheric circulation that begins pulling in moist coastal air, which eventuates in even more rain.
In other words, the moisture from the forest is kickstarting an early wet season.

If we've been chopping down forest in Australia, have we affected our rainfall?
The evidence for what is called "recycling of rainfall" in the Amazon has been proven beyond doubt, according to Andy Pitman from University of New South Wales. But that world-renowned rainforest is also massive.
"There's really strong evidence from isotopic analysis that on average, a molecule of water falls four to six times as it flows across the Amazon. No argument," Professor Pitman said.
"In the [Australian] tropics, there would be a similar process operating, but instead of a huge, great blob like the Amazon, you have a nice, thin pencil line of forests [along the coast].
Almost 40 per cent of Australia's forests have been cleared.
"What happens is the air masses are coming in from the oceans, flowing across this pencil line, and the notion that that would generate enough moisture to make a significant impact on rainfall is pretty unlikely."
Although difficult to quantify, recycling of rainfall is likely to occur to some extent over Australia's larger forests such as in the Blue Mountains, according to Professor Pitman.
A 2013 International Journal of Sustainable Development paper argued that a significant portion of rainfall disruption in Western Australia had wrongly been attributed to climate change.
Around 50 per cent of native forests in the state's south-west were cleared between the 1960s and 1980s, which coincided with a decrease of around 16 per cent in inland rainfall compared to coastal rain, according to University of Western Australia researcher Mark Andrich.
"Around half of the rainfall decline, at least up until the year 2000, is a result of land clearing," Dr Andrich told the ABC at the time.
Historic clearing on the east coast has had a comparable impact, according to Clive McAlpine from the University of Queensland.
"Especially in southeast Australia around the Murray-Darlin Basin area," he said.
"We have shown in those El Nino years [deforestation] makes the drought worse."
While there are differing views on whether Australian forests produce enough water vapour to also produce rain, there is less division over forests reducing temperature.
"They certainly have an impact on temperature," Professor Pitman said.
Professor McAlpine's research has also shown this.
"Trees are a micro-climate, they cool the land surface. We've done a little bit of work with satellites which shows that temperatures are 2 to 3 degrees hotter in areas that have got no trees," he said.
"In 2003 which was a bad El Nino year, it was 2 degrees hotter over a large area of eastern Australia [due to] historical clearing."

So could regrowing forests influence drought?
In regions dominated by tropical rainforest, research has shown that those forests can significantly influence broad-scale rain patterns.
A 2012 paper in Nature found that air that had passed over large tropical forests produced around double the rainfall of air that hadn't, and fell up to one thousand kilometres away.
Almost 40 per cent of Australia's forests have been cleared.
But in Australia, recycling of rainfall is more localised, according to Professor McAlpine's research.
"It's not big weather systems, it's the convective, local evapotranspiration and recycling of moisture back into the atmosphere from the vegetation that seems to have the strongest benefit," he said.
His team used models to predict the rainfall benefit that could result from regrowing Australia's cleared forests.
They experimented with keeping the "most profitable" agricultural lands cleared and returned "marginal land" to forest.
"We still had a significant benefit in terms of rainfall and temperature from restoring that vegetation," Professor McAlpine said.
"A lot of that could be restored just by letting the regrowth [take over]. Stopping clearing and letting it regenerate."
And although Professor Pitman believes forest regeneration would provide minimal benefit to rainfall, there are plenty of other reasons why it's a good idea.
"It's not a silver bullet, but it has to help, for several reasons," he said.
"First of all, it does cool, and that's no bad thing. It does produce moisture into the atmosphere, that's no bad thing. It helps with biodiversity. And it's a carbon sink. These are all good things."

Links

The Global Fight Against Climate Change Just Stalled. The Clock To Restart It Is Ticking

TIMEJustin Worland


When President Donald Trump announced last year that he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, other world leaders pledged that they would not slow their own efforts down.
But the fight against climate change has now hit a roadblock.
Several key countries are not meeting the commitments they laid out to reduce emissions even before the Paris Agreement was negotiated, heightening concerns about ongoing negotiations on how to implement the global climate pact.
Here in San Francisco, where California Gov. Jerry Brown has convened a summit of government officials, climate activists and environmental policymakers, enthusiasm runs high for a wide range of climate change initiatives that will move the needle on global emissions, but top figures in the climate world also acknowledge that current efforts are not enough to stem serious climate change.
“The world is not achieving the goals under Paris. It’s stalled,” Brown tells TIME. “We’ve got to wake up.”
A report released last year by the United Nations Environment Programme showed that current commitments will result in temperatures rising more than 5.5°F by 2100, far short of the goal of keeping temperature rise below 3.6°F. And countries aren’t even living up those promises.
The report pointed to a long list of G20 countries who were not on track to keep their promises to cut emissions: Argentina, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea and the U.S.
The report was intended to galvanize countries into action, but progress has remained stagnant since then. An attempt to implement a strong climate change policy toppled the Australian Prime Minister last month, killing any chance that the country will reach its goal. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to forge ahead with national carbon pricing has received pushback that threatens its survival, not to mention his own political chances in his reelection campaign next year.
Some leaders at the E.U. — including the head of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker — have sought more aggressive action, but have received pushback from member states. Germany in particular has remained reluctant, with Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuffing efforts to tighten E.U. emissions standards even as political leaders acknowledge the country will fall short of its commitments.
“Germany is going to fail its climate goal,” Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter, a state secretary at Germany’s Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, tells TIME. “Now every sector needs to contribute.”
U.N. negotiations on how to implement the Paris Agreement have lagged so much that officials called an extra meeting this month ahead of the pre-planned U.N. climate conference in December in Poland. That conference resulted in “uneven progress,” according to Patricia Espinosa, who heads the U.N. Climate Change program.
Of course, the biggest climate change laggard is the U.S. The Trump Administration continues to rollback climate regulation and has sought to rebuild the coal industry, a chief emitter of carbon dioxide. A coalition of U.S. cities, states and businesses that formed in the wake of Trump’s decision to pull out of Paris has sought to make up the lost ground with their own emissions reductions programs, and a report released Wednesday in San Francisco shows the group’s current policies cutting U.S. emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2025. That’s two thirds of the way to President Obama’s commitment.
“Existing commitments are delivering real climate results today,” says Paul Bodnar, a former climate negotiator at the U.S. State Department and now a Managing Director at the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Still, despite the optimism even leaders of the coalition say the U.S. government needs to return to the table to tackle climate change seriously. “At the end of the day, the United States has to be on board,” says Brown. “It can’t be AWOL, much less sabotaging everything.”
For those who cheered the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, a group that included heads of government from across the globe, the change in momentum since Trump’s election is stark and would have been hard to fathom in the weeks and months that followed the negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement. At the time, countries agreed to the deal unanimously, and it entered into force in just 11 months, a process that often takes years.
A variety of debates have emerged among leaders here in San Francisco over a slew of different plans intended to address the intricacies of climate change — from the best policy mechanism to reduce emissions in the U.S. to the effect warming will have on our health care systems and everything in between.
But climate experts and world leaders engaged on the issue agree that the clock is ticking to sort through those discussions and act as the effects of climate change become more apparent and the costs to address it continue to increase.
“Climate change is moving faster than we are,” said U.N. Secretary General António Guterres at a speech in New York Monday. “If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences.”
The clock is ticking.



Links

Climate Change: We Need To Start Moving People Away From Some Coastal Areas, Warns Scientist

The Conversation

Jaroslav Moravcik/Shutterstock.com
We are all too familiar with images of flooding in low lying areas after heavy rainfall or houses destroyed by coastal erosion after a storm. For an increasing number of people, coastal flooding and erosion is a real threat to property, the local economy and, in some cases, life. Hurricane Florence, for example, is forcing more than a million people on the US East Coast to flee from their homes.
Coasts support important industries (such as ports and tourism) and their populations are growing faster than inland areas. But coastal areas are also particularly sensitive to impacts of climate change, which are likely to increase the extent, intensity and frequency of coastal flooding and erosion.
So not only have we occupied areas that naturally flood and erode from time to time, we have changed the environment in ways that increase coastal flooding and erosion risk. And we continue to do so, sometimes with serious legal consequences. Meanwhile, public policies have not been very effective in managing this predicament.
North Carolina residents evacuate ahead of the forecast landfall of Hurricane Florence. Caitlin Penna/EPA-EFE
 Traditional hard engineering approaches of coastal protection (such as groynes, revetments and seawalls) are known to cause detrimental effects, which in the longer term can aggravate the problem they were supposed to solve. The impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was a stark reminder that engineering structures are not effective against all events at all times. They are built based on trade-offs between the level of protection needed and the costs of construction and maintenance.
Soft engineering, such as beach nourishment (where sediment, usually sand, is added to the shore), can offer a level of protection and beach amenity – but these reduce through time, as erosion continues. Meanwhile, “protection” gives a false sense of safety and enables occupation of risk areas, increasing the number of people and assets in risk areas.


Attractive but dangerous locations. Georgios Tsichlis/Shutterstock.com
A serious conundrum
Climate change has forced a paradigm shift in the way coastal flooding and erosion risks are managed. In areas of lower risk, adaptation plans are being devised, often with provisions to make properties and infrastructure more resilient. Adaptation may involve requiring raised foundations in flood-prone areas or the installation of mitigating measures, such as sustainable drainage systems. Building codes may also be established to make structures more disaster-proof and to control the types of constructions within risk zones.
But such adaptation options are often of limited use or unsuitable for high-risk areas. In such areas relocation is the only safe climate-proof response.
Planning for relocation is problematic. There are large uncertainties concerning the predictions of climate change impacts – and this makes planning a difficult task. Uncertainty is not an easy concept to incorporate in planning and coastal management. In some places, effects of sea level rise are already evident, but it’s still difficult to be sure how fast and how much it will rise.
Similarly, there is still great uncertainty about when and where the next “super storm” will happen and how intense it will be. Inevitably, areas that have already been affected by flooding or erosion will be affected again – the question is when and how badly.


Hurricane Florence moves towards the east coast of the US. NOAA
Relocated
Despite these issues, relocation is increasingly being adopted as a strategy. There have been some successes at the local level. One such example is the Twin Streams project in Auckland (New Zealand), where relocation (through the purchase of 81 properties) has provided space to create community gardens and cycleways where 800,000 native vegetation plants were planted. This was made possible by engaging over 60,000 volunteer hours.
Although not on the coast, the town of Kiruna in Sweden shows that, when risks are high, forward thinking and long-term planning can make large-scale relocation possible. Kiruna is at risk of ground collapse due to mining. Over a 20-year period, more than 18,000 residents will be relocated to a new city centre 3km away. The layout of the new city centre has been designed to be more sustainable, energy efficient and have better options for cultural activities and socialising. Local residents were engaged and helped identifying 21 heritage buildings they want relocated to the new area.


Kiruna, the northernmost town in Sweden. Tsuguliev/Shutterstock.com
The French, meanwhile, have instigated the first ever national strategy focused on relocation from high-risk areas. French policy places a duty on local authorities to develop plans by 2020, identifying the areas at serious risk of coastal flooding or erosion, what needs to be relocated and how (including sources of funding). Five pilot areas have been selected to test how the strategy might be implemented at the local level. Two of these areas have contrasting approaches and outcomes.
In Lacanau (a top surfing stop in the Bay of Biscay) coastal erosion threatens the tourism-based economy. Although public opposition was initially high, the development of a local plan has generally been positive, mainly due to the inclusive community involvement in the project. A local committee was created to act as a consultation body and decisions were informed by open discussions based on clear communication of technical, legal, financial and sociological issues.
In Ault (northern France) the experience was less positive. the risk reduction plan identified a high-risk zone within 70 metres of the cliff edge. It was decided that no new construction would be allowed here and restrictions to improvements on the existing 240 houses were imposed. This would force relocation if the properties were damaged by flooding or erosion. In May 2018 a residents group won a court case which considered the plan illegal, lifting the restrictions imposed on renovation of existing properties until a new plan is drafted.


The clifftops of Ault, France. Massimo Santi/Shutterstock.com
Engaging communities
These examples demonstrate that engaging with local communities from the inception of any such project is essential. Unfortunately, people instinctively resist change – and relocation is a complete shift from the centuries-old approach of fixing coastlines and fighting against coastal dynamics. Our current legal and management frameworks are too geared up for maintaining the status quo. Funding and legal aid to support purchase of properties and removal of infrastructure that are not imminently deemed inhabitable are limited.
But open and inclusive debate about the need for relocation and the consequences and benefits of it can change people’s perceptions. The “Nimby” (not in my backyard) attitude is strong in coastal communities, but can subside after personal experiences of severe flooding or erosion. The environment around us is changing and we cannot continue living the way we did in the past.
Prevention is always less costly and more effective than remediation, particularly when involving people’s safety. The earlier we accept the need to change, the less damaged is the legacy we leave to the next generations.

Links

Hurricane Florence Is A Climate Change Triple Threat

The Guardian*

If we don’t act on climate change, the destruction potential of slow-moving storms such as Harvey and Florence will only get worse
High winds and water batter Swansboro, North Carolina as Hurricane Florence hits. Photograph: Tom Copeland/AP
Just a year ago we were dealing with an historically devastating Atlantic hurricane season. It was marked by the strongest hurricane – Irma – ever observed in the open Atlantic, the near total devastation of Puerto Rico by a similarly powerful category 5 monster Maria, and Hurricane Harvey – the worst flooding event in US history. At the time, I commented here and elsewhere about the role climate change had played in amplifying the destructive characteristics of these storms.
Not to be outdone, the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, initially predicted to be quiet – quelled by an incipient El Niño event and cool, early summer ocean waters – has suddenly erupted. If the current disturbance in the western Gulf of Mexico known as “95L” earns the status of tropical storm, the 2018 season will be the second time in recorded history that we’ve seen five tropical storms simultaneously present in the Atlantic basin (the last time was in 1971).
What happened to cause all of this? An early autumn ocean “heat wave” has brought sea surface temperatures in the western Atlantic to bathtub-level warmth. Just as summer heat waves on land are greatly increased in frequency and intensity by even modest overall warming, so too are these ocean heat waves becoming more frequent and more extreme as the oceans continue warm. All else being equal, warmer oceans mean more energy to intensify tropical storms and hurricanes.
But when it comes to coastal threat, it hardly matters how many tropical storms there are over the course of the season. A single landfalling hurricane can wreak havoc and destruction. Think Katrina in 2005, Irene in 2011, Sandy in 2012, either Harvey or Maria in 2017 and now Florence in 2018.
In this sense, the sometimes fractious debate about whether we’ll see more or fewer storms in a warmer world is somewhat misplaced. What matters is that there is a consensus we’ll see stronger and worse flood-producing storms – and, in fact, we’re seeing them already. That brings us to Hurricane Florence: a climatologically-amplified triple threat.
First, there is the threat of wind damage. Florence strengthened into a monster category 4 hurricane with 140 mile per hour winds over those very warm western Atlantic waters. Past studies indicate a roughly 7% increase in the peak wind speed of a category 4 storm for each 1C warming of ocean surface temperatures. So the roughly 1.5C warmer-than-normal waters in the subtropical Atlantic where the storm intensified (and keep in mind that “normal” as modernly defined by NOAA as the average during the 1981-2010 period is itself already about 1C warmer than pre-industrial times prior to advent of human-caused greenhouse warming) corresponds to a roughly 11% increase in peak winds. But the destructive potential of a storm goes as the cube of the wind speed. So that 11% increase in wind speed corresponds to a 33% increase in destructive potential. That’s not a subtle effect.
Fortunately those winds decreased substantially as the storm approached landfall. But even as a strong, very slowly moving hurricane pounding structures with near 100mph winds for hours on end, Florence is doing considerable damage as it skirts the long Carolina coastline, taking down trees and powerlines and rendering large areas without electricity.
That brings us to the second, even greater threat: storm surge. Though the storm weakened as it approached the coast, the storm surge was built up over of a period of several days, including the time during which it existed as a category 4 or strong category 3 storm. That means the catastrophic, roughly-10ft storm surge from Cape Hatteras to Myrtle Beach was baked in well in advance of the landfall of the storm.
Don’t forget to add to that the 1ft of sea level rise that has occurred along the south-eastern US coast, mostly due to climate change (there’s a small contribution owing to the geological subsidence of the coast).
The wonderful little coastal North Carolina town of New Bern has been particularly hard hit, with the downtown area flooded by the 10ft storm surge and 200 people requiring rescue. It is seemingly prescient that I gave a lecture in New Bern last year, during last year’s storm season, warning about the coastal threat from climate change, in a church that has now been flooded by Florence.
Last, but not least, we have the threat of inland flooding. Warmer oceans mean more moisture in the atmosphere. It’s one of the simplest relationships in all of meteorology: for each 1C of warming, there is about 7% more moisture in the air. That means those 1.5C-above-normal ocean temperatures have given the storm about 10% more moisture. All other things being equal, that implies about 10% more rainfall.
But that’s not the whole story. What made Harvey a record flooding event last year and makes Florence such a flooding threat now, is the slow-moving nature of the storm. The slower the storm moves, the more rainfall that accumulates in any one location and the more flooding you get. Such was the case with other devastating storms such as Harvey or 2011’s Hurricane Irene that caused historic flooding in my own state of Pennsylvania.
Some headlines have reported that Florence is a warning of what is to come. But in reality, it is a warning of what has already arrived. Far worse is to come if we don’t get serious, in a hurry, about acting on climate change. We must transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy even more rapidly, and we must elect politicians who will support such efforts. In the US, there’s an opportunity to do so in less than two months now in the upcoming midterm elections, where we must elect politicians who support enlightened policies on energy and climate, and vote out of office those who don’t.

*Michael E Mann is the distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. He is co-author of The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening our Planet, Ruining our Politics and Driving us Crazy

Links