05/03/2019

How The Weather Gets Weaponized In Climate Change Messaging

New York Times - Brad Plumer


Clearing snow in Buffalo, N.Y., in January. Credit Lindsay Dedario/Reuters
WASHINGTON — In the summer, when heat waves scorch cities or heavy rains flood the coasts, some climate scientists and environmentalists will point out any plausible connections to global warming, hoping today’s weather will help people understand tomorrow’s danger from climate change.
Then winter comes. And, like clockwork, those who want to deny the established science that humans are warming the planet will try to flip the script. In January, when large swaths of the country were gripped by bitter cold, President Trump took to Twitter to mock climate fears: “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!”
Welcome to the weather wars. As battle lines harden between supporters and opponents of climate action, both are increasingly using bouts of extreme weather as a weapon to try to win people to their side. Weather, after all, is one of the easiest things for people to bond over or gripe about, a staple of small talk and shared experience that can make it a simple but powerful opportunity to discuss global warming.
But, as Mr. Trump’s words show, it’s also a framing device that can be easily abused. That raises the stakes for how scientists, who have long tried to distinguish between short-term weather fluctuations and long-term climate shifts, draw out and discuss the links between the two.
“Weather, and especially extreme weather, is how most people will experience climate change,” said Susan Joy Hassol, director of the science outreach nonprofit group Climate Communication. “You don’t experience the slow change in average temperature. What you experience are the changes in extreme weather that are brought about. So how we talk about that is really important.”
One reason that the weather can offer a potent messaging opportunity may boil down to human psychology. Climate science itself is often complex and abstract. It can be tough to feel, on a gut level, the implications of a chart showing global temperatures ticking up over time, or statistics showing that, on average, 95-degree days or torrential downpours are becoming more frequent.
But an unusual weather event that hits today, like a brutal heat wave or heavy storm, is more visceral. Laboratory experiments have found that people’s beliefs about global warming can be swayed by their immediate environment. Put someone in a hot room and they’re more likely to agree the planet is warming. Thirsty people become more alarmed by drought forecasts.
Psychologists have suggested these visceral experiences make it easier for our brains to imagine future states of the world, and therefore make them seem more likely. An exceptionally hot or cold day, other studies have found, can play the same role.
Some messengers have long realized that emotion and immediacy can be a powerful force.
“Trump is a branding guy,” said David B. Srere, co-chief executive and chief strategy officer at Siegel+Gale, a brand consultancy. “He knows his audience and understands how to tell a clear, simple story. Climate advocates and the scientific community need to get better at understanding their audience and figure out how to tell a simple, repeatable story of their own.”
In recent years, some climate scientists have focused on trying to turn flare-ups of severe weather into teachable moments. “This is what global warming looks like,” scientists said during the summer of 2012, a season of widespread droughts, wildfires and extreme heat advisories.
And they have become increasingly comfortable drawing those connections.
Back in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, many researchers responded cautiously, saying it was difficult to attribute a single event to global warming. A few noted that rising ocean temperatures could make hurricanes more destructive, on average, in the future. But even that was fairly abstract.
Over time, that messaging has shifted.
Partly that’s because, as climate models have improved, scientists have been able to demonstrate more rigorously how rising greenhouse gas emissions have made recent heat waves or droughts more intense or more likely to occur — a budding field known as “extreme weather attribution.” Scientists have also refined their communication strategies, using metaphors like “loaded dice” to talk about how global warming is now making certain severe weather events more likely.
“The conversation today couldn’t be more different than it was a decade ago,” said Hunter Cutting, director of strategic communications for Climate Nexus, a nonprofit group focused on climate issues. “Back then, at best, you might get scientists talking about what effects we could see by the year 2100. Now we’re seeing leaders connect the dots in a much more direct way.”
That strategy, though, can cut both ways. Deniers of climate change have also sought to use the daily weather to shape perceptions. Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, once brought a snowball to the Senate floor to suggest that global warming wasn’t a problem. When cold spells strike, Mr. Trump will ridicule worries about climate change:



Parrying Mr. Trump’s tweets can be a challenge, some supporters of action on climate change concede. He can drive the conversation: One recent survey from Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group, found that broadcast television networks rarely discuss global warming when extreme weather is unfolding. But they do often note the president’s climate comments.
Scientists and environmentalists have tried various tactics to push back. They might note that record hot days are becoming far more frequent than record cold days, and that no one expects global warming to eliminate snow altogether. Or they’ll reiterate that the ups and downs of daily weather aren’t the same as broader long-term shifts in the Earth’s climate, and that a single cold day can’t disprove global warming anymore than a single hot day proves it.
Still, a casual observer could be forgiven for feeling a bit of whiplash after that line. After all, haven’t we been hearing that severe weather is a manifestation of climate change when it’s hot out?
Flooding in Townsville, Australia, in February. The area, in northeastern Queensland State, has seen unusual amounts of rain this year. Credit Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images
Marshall Shepherd, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Georgia, isn’t convinced that the president’s tweets about cold weather have staying power.
“I see Trump’s tweets as an opportunity to discuss the science,” he said. “To the 9 or 10 percent of the population that are going to be dismissive of climate science no matter what, there’s not much you can say to them. But a lot of people out there are legitimately curious” about how global warming can be real if it’s cold out today.
That raises the question of whether the messaging skirmishes around severe weather and climate change are swaying public perceptions, or whether each side is just preaching to those who are already converted.
There are some signs opinion is shifting. One recent survey by researchers at Yale and George Mason University found that 69 percent of Americans were “worried” about global warming, an 8-point increase from the previous spring. One possible explanation, the researchers suggested, was the spate of extreme weather disasters in 2018, from wildfires to hurricanes, along with increased efforts by scientists and even local TV weathercasters to put that in a climate context.
“For a long time, Americans saw climate change as a distant threat,” said Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason who works on climate change communication. “But as of our most recent survey, I don’t feel I can say that anymore. We’re seeing a lot of movement on people understanding that climate change is already happening.”
Others are more cautious about interpreting these trends. One 2017 study, for instance, found that people who experience extreme weather are, for a short period, more likely to support climate adaptation measures than they were before. But the effect was modest and diminished over time.
It may be that people mentally adjust to unusual weather patterns quickly, updating their idea of what counts as normal. Politics may also play a role: In a polarized country, many Americans are already hardened in their beliefs about global warming.
Partly for that reason, David M. Konisky, an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University and an author of that 2017 study, said he wonders whether better messaging can dramatically shift opinions. “It might be that climate has become so wrapped up in one’s identity and worldview that it’s not the sort of thing that’s susceptible to better messaging,” he said.
Wanyun Shao, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Alabama, lands in the middle. Her research has found that Democrats and Republicans do perceive severe weather differently: Democrats tend to see it as part of a broader pattern of climate change, Republicans as more of an aberration. But, she has also found, a consistent string of shifting weather — year after year of increasing summer heat, for instance — does start to chip away even at conservative doubt about global warming.
“For some people, it takes more time,” she said. “But eventually people start trusting their own experiences.”

Links
at No comments:

Are Our Cities Effectively Planning For Climate Change?

The Conversation - 

Many cities have plans in place to adapt to or mitigate the effects of climate change. But are they credible? An ongoing study looks into the question. David Blackwell/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
In 2006, pioneering cities such as London (United Kingdom) and Durban (South Africa) started integrating climate change in their policies and plans in order to prepare infrastructures, communities, ecosystems and institutions for its most likely impacts.
Since then, many cities large and small around the globe have followed their example. Important global and regional city networks to promote action on climate change have been created (C40) and global commitments, such as the Global Covenant of Mayors, have been signed.
From megacities to small towns, those taking action all have their say. And for this reason, cities have an increasing role in the international negotiations. This was demonstrated after the Paris Agreement in 2015, when there was no question on the significant contribution of non-state actors in fighting against climate change.

Only 47% of 885 European cities have plans
So far, meaningful studies have attempted to track the progress made to date on urban adaptation. A large-scale study of 885 European cities found that only 47% have adaptation plans in place, be they focused on adaptation (26%) or a combination of adaptation and mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions).
A December 2016 study using a database of 401 global cities with more than 1 million inhabitants found that only 18% report adaptation initiatives. Other country-specific studies have been developed in Canada, the United States, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom. Most of these studies share a significant bias on developed countries and the focus has been made on the existence of policies to assert the progress made on adaptation.

Assessing cities
While such progress is good, how do we know if these plans will effectively reduce future risks? One first needs to consider whether those plans are politically and economically credible – whether they are based on sound scientific knowledge and whether city agents and civil society will support the planned activities and projects.
To help answer these question, we developed and tested a new approach in four pioneering cities (Durban, Quito, Copenhagen and Vancouver). In the study we develop metrics to assess adaptation policies’ credibility by finding out whether they’re financially secured, if the right climatic assessments have been developed and whether citizens’ opinions have been taken into consideration.

Some are more exposed to climate change impacts and pollution than others. Makoko, in the Lagos region of Nigeria, is known for its laguna “slum”.

The legitimacy of adaptation policies is crucial. Every public action needs to be transparent and every policy needs to be built on a participatory process. Adaptation efforts must also protect those more exposed to climate change impacts. At the same time, adaptation measures may benefit some communities and not others; losers and winners of climate change adaptation need to be considered.
Our conclusions? There is still work to be done even in the cities that are most advanced in climate adaptation efforts, particularly regarding the establishment of legitimate processes with stakeholders and communities, the establishment of adequate monitoring systems, the definition of a sustainable budget for implementation and finally, the consideration of risks and uncertainty that climate change inherently brings.

Calculating future risks
In this line, a January 2017 study calculated the future probability and associated economic damages of climatic impacts linked to sea-level rise through the 21st century in 120 large coastal cities all over the world.
It was found that uncertainty has a critical role in decision-making: there might be events with a potential for high economic damage yet a very low probability of occurring; there are also lower-impact events that have a much higher probability. We tend to plan for the high-probability, low-impact events and disregard those that have lower probability but a greater potential for damage. If we look at the 5% of the worst cases, this may have important implications for cities as the consequences may be catastrophic from an economic, social or environmental perspective. An important example is Hurricane Sandy, which struck New York City in 2012. Afterward, the city prepared the “Stronger, More Resilient New York” plan, released in 2013.
This work also identified the need to define the level of risk that cities would be willing to accept. As with any other type of risk, climatic risks cannot be completely eliminated with reasonable resources. What is possible and what is feasible are two different things.
To take an exaggerated example, it will be always possible to build 4-meter walls to prevent a river from flooding. However, this is hardly realistic or practical from an economic, environmental or social point of view. To reduce the risk of floods in the most exposed areas in Bilbao, Spain, the city recently opened the Deusto canal. The project will reduce the magnitude of the impacts from increasing rainfalls and high tides, but cannot eliminate them completely.
Do current city adaptation plans considering climatic risks in these terms? How much risk are cities planning for?
Deusto canal, Bilbao. http://www.zorrotzaurre.com/
Tracking cities
To answer such questions, our ongoing research project, “Are cities preparing for climate change?”, tracks urban adaptation efforts in 136 coastal cities.
First, we have been documenting adaptation-related policies in these 136 cities that have an impact on coastal management. Here it is is essential to take into account not only local policies, but also but regional and national ones. We will assess which policies are likely to be implemented and sustained in the long term (credibility) and later, we will evaluate if the planned measures have the capability to reduce future risks.
For example, in Montevideo (Uruguay) we analysed national and metropolitan adaptation policies. We are now particularly looking at the Plan Climático de la Región Metropolitana de Uruguay (metropolitan plan) and assessing whether it is credible and how coastal measures have been defined to address their specific future risks.
Aerial view of Montevideo, Uruguay. Rabble/Flickr/Wikimedia, CC BY
Protecting biodiversity and coastal ecosystems and controlling urbanisation in areas that tend to erode, as Montevideo does, is a good indicator of future adaptability to extreme events.
While our final results of our tracking study may only come in 2020, we hope that it will serve as an example in sectors other than urban coastal adaptation. We also hope that it will be used by the cities themselves to improve their climate planning skills and adjust their strategies according to the climate change risks they may face in a future that it is closer every day.

Links
at No comments:

Climate Change In Court

Pursuit, University of Melbourne - 

A recent court ruling could signal a new direction for Australian climate law after the appropriateness of a proposed fossil fuel development was put on trial
Getty Images
Dr Laura Schuijers is an Environmental Lawyer and Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne.
Last month, Chief Justice Preston of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court handed down what has been heralded as a landmark decision dismissing on appeal the proposal of Gloucester Resources to construct a new open-cut coal mine in the state’s Hunter Valley.
The Chief Justice found that, as well as creating unacceptable impacts for local residents, the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project would adversely impact upon measures to limit dangerous anthropogenic climate change.
The Chief Justice found that “all anthropogenic GHG emissions contribute to climate change”. Picture: Getty Images
 Dismissing the notion that has been relied upon in Australian courts in previous cases that one mine in Australia represents only a small fraction of global emissions, he found that all of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the Rocky Hill Coal Project will negatively impact on the environment, since “all anthropogenic GHG emissions contribute to climate change”.

The carbon budget and the wrong time test
What’s particularly significant about this case is that it’s the first time that Australia’s share of the so-called ‘global carbon budget’ – derived from the Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and ideally to no more than 1.5°C – has been heard in a court and used as a reason to dismiss a fossil fuel project.
Emeritus Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University provided an expert testimony to the court explaining the carbon budget approach and why the remainder of Australia’s coal reserves need to “be left in the ground, unburned”.
Referring to leading peer-reviewed science, he explained the imperative of fossil fuel phase-out in Australia if global emission reduction targets are to be achieved, commenting “it doesn’t take an Einstein to work that out, that you cannot reduce emissions by increasing them.”
From this has emerged what has been dubbed as the ‘wrong time test’.
To pass the test, a proponent of a fossil fuel project needs to establish why their project should be approved “at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emissions”. The test does not imply that the Paris Agreement prohibits new fossil fuel developments.
It was argued in court that if the coal was not mined here, then it would be mined somewhere else. Picture: Getty Images
 However, it recognises that a practical consequence of reaching the emission reductions required to achieve the 1.5 to 2°C goal is that coal production needs to reduce rather than expand. Given that context, new proposals must be considered very carefully.
The factual evidence laid out in the case demonstrates that what’s at stake are the serious and tangible risks that climate change poses for countries including Australia.

The market substitution argument
The Rocky Hill judgment rejects an argument known as the “market substitution” or “perfect substitute” argument. The logic of this argument is that if coal is not mined in Australia and ultimately burned somewhere, then an exact (rather than a more environmentally friendly) substitute will be mined and burned elsewhere.
This argument, colloquially known as the “drug-dealer’s argument”, was behind Justice Griffith’s 2016 decision in the Federal Court that Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine should be approved. He wasn’t persuaded that Adani’s mine would have a net impact on global GHG emissions, even though it would be the largest coal mine in the Southern Hemisphere.
In the Rocky Hill case, the Land and Environment Court heard a claim that if the coal was not mined in Gloucester, then it would be mined somewhere else like India or Indonesia, and overall global emissions wouldn’t be affected.
Chief Justice Preston rejected this argument as logically flawed, pointing to the fact that the proponents of the argument have no evidence of market forces to support it, that countries around the world are reducing emissions to comply with their Paris targets, and that developed nations such as Australia should take the lead – a concept enshrined in the Paris Agreement. He says:
“The potential for a hypothetical but uncertain alternative development to cause the same unacceptable environmental impact is not a reason to approve a definite development that will certainly cause the unacceptable environmental impacts.” 
Developed nations like Australia should take the lead on reducing emissions to comply with their Paris targets. Picture: Getty Images
 The Chief Justice’s approach might be new for Australia, but it follows a trend emerging in foreign courts. The market substitution argument, criticised by scholars in the United States, has already been rejected by the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals as being an irrational assumption contrary to basic supply and demand principles.

An anomaly or a new direction?
The Rocky Hill case is not binding for other state and territory courts, nor for the Federal Court, and for this reason it could turn out to be an anomaly.
The case was a “merits review” as opposed to a “judicial review”, meaning that the court was able to step into the shoes of the original decision-maker – the NSW Planning Minister – and determine whether his decision not to approve the mine was the correct or preferable one.
In other cases, courts may only be able to consider whether the decision was made within the bounds of the law. In cases like this, courts are interested in whether the decision-maker took into consideration the factors that he or she needed to, and do not tend to judge whether the weight given to climate change vis-à-vis other relevant factors was appropriate.
What this essentially means is that it is generally government ministers who hold the power to determine, guided by the law, what influence climate change considerations will ultimately bear on a mine approval. The court’s role is limited.
Given that Australia’s 20-year-old national environment law does not mention climate change in its 527 provisions, and that Australia does not have a national climate law or any formal codification of its Paris commitments, it’s arguable that the law does not really provide very much guidance to these decision-makers.
Under the Paris agreement, Australia’s aim is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. Picture: Getty Images
While some state and territory legislation does recognise climate change, what is required varies significantly from state to state. So, in turn, do the judgments of different (and less specialised) courts.
Legal scholars have argued that climate change needs to be seen as a matter that is of importance to the whole country, even in the context of specific projects located in one state or territory. Therefore, that it should be relevant for ministers whenever they are weighing up a new fossil fuel development. But the law is not clear and has, as a result, been interpreted in various and sometimes conflicting ways.
Despite these factors, the reasoning in the Rocky Hill case could well prove difficult to argue with in future cases considering the appropriateness of new fossil fuel developments. And it certainly signals a wind of change.
The wrong time test reflects the current global imperative to reduce emissions, which is relevant to Australia as a signatory of the Paris Agreement, and it also applies that context to individual projects. It provides a much-needed means to recognise the cumulative effects caused by each fossil fuel project to the greater problem of climate change, and to the flow-on environmental, social and economic impacts facing Australia.
Its basis is grounded in strong scientific evidence. For these reasons, it should be persuasive for Australian courts that have in the past struggled to articulate climate change as a “significant” rather than “speculative” or “remote” issue.
Through the Rocky Hill case, Australian courts now have a clear example of how the need to reduce emissions, on account of the threats to Australia posed by climate change, and on account of Australia’s foreign commitments, can be applied to decisions about individual projects.
The court’s rejection of the market substitution argument is also a position that we are likely to see reinforced if the argument is tested in another court. If the argument is indeed illogical and flawed, then it would be strange to see it succeed in an analogous context.
Australia’s 20-year-old national environment law does not mention climate change in its 527 provisions. Picture: Getty Images
 From what we have seen in the Rocky Hill case and abroad, it would be difficult, even if the argument was considered, for a proponent to be able to show that its proposal would not have any net impact on global emissions and is therefore acceptable.
If the Rocky Hill case is anything to go by, the winds may just be too strong now for the historical ‘not our problem’ type arguments that Australia has relied on in the past to withstand them.

Links
at No comments: