Lethal Heating: 10/05/19

05/10/2019

Reasons There Might Be No Path To Success On Climate Change

Forbes - Chunka Mui

"Grasp the larger hope" -- Winston Churchill. Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

I want to scream “You’re not helping!” every time I read a story like this one, which recently ran in USA Today: “End of civilization: climate change apocalypse could start by 2050 if we don't act, report warns.”
I certainly worry about what might befall us and our children by 2030, 2050 and 2100—three often cited milestones (such as here, here and here). But, I want to scream because I fear that such warnings about far-in-the-future calamities make it much less likely that what we do anything today to mitigate or adapt to the challenges we face.
That’s because, ironically, while such climate scenarios are intended to mobilize public opinion towards urgent action, they likely hurt that very cause.

Daniel Kahneman receives the Nobel Prize in Economics. (JONAS EKSTROMER/AFP/Getty Images)

To understand why, consider the pessimism of Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winning behavioral scientist: “I really see no path to success on climate change,” he told George Marshall in Marshall’s bracing book, “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.”
Kahneman fears that climate change is a hopeless problem for three reasons:
First, it lacks salience. It is too “abstract, distant, invisible and disputed” to capture our attention. Without attention, there is no action
Second, dealing with climate change is typically thought to require people to accept short-term costs and reductions on living standard in order to address higher but uncertain future losses. Such sacrifice is not in our nature. One University of Chicago poll found that while 72% of respondents believed that climate change is happening, half were unwilling pay even $1 each month to help address it.
Third, climate change seems uncertain and contested—“even if there is a National Academy on one side and some cranks on the other.”
By focusing our minds on what might happen 10, 30 or even 80 years from now, far-off doomsday scenarios reinforce the abstract and distant nature of climate change. They widen the window of scientific uncertainty both the outcome and costs, and therefore enhance the opportunity for rebuttal and confusion.
“The bottom line,” Kahneman concluded, “is that I’m extremely skeptical that we can cope with climate change. To mobilize people, this has to become an emotional issue. It has to have immediacy and salience. A distant, abstract and disputed threat just doesn’t have the necessary characteristics for seriously mobilizing public opinion.”
Kahneman’s pessimism is unfortunately well supported by other researchers—and applies not just to climate change but to the broader challenge of why we, individually and as a society, underprepare for slow moving, predictable disasters. As solidly laid out by Robert Meyer and Howard Krunreuther in “The Ostrich Paradox: Why We Underprepare for Disasters”:
“Our ability to foresee and protect against natural catastrophes has never been greater; yet, we consistently fail to heed the warnings and protect ourselves and our communities, with devastating consequences.”
So, are we doomed? Perhaps. But, remember the observation of Arthur C. Clarke, in what has become known as Clarke’s First Law:
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Let’s hope that the distinguished Daniel Kahneman is “probably wrong.” Also, take a lesson from Winston Churchill on the gathering storm of World War II: “Having got ourselves into this awful plight in 1939, it was vital to grasp the larger hope.”

Links

Climate Change Threatens Oceans, Ice Sheets, Sea Level - And Us

Forbes - Mike Scott

A scientist carrying out tests on a glacier in Greenland. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Getty Images

Sea levels are rising even faster than scientists had predicted and by the end of the century, the oceans could be more than a metre higher than today if global CO2 emissions are not controlled, a new expert analysis has concluded.

Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body comprising the world’s leading climate scientists, published a report on how climate change will affect land. It highlighted how climate change is affecting the production of food, at the same time as agriculture and deforestation are also major contributors to climate change.
Food production will be affected by problems ranging from desertification and more frequent and severe droughts to floods, landslides and heatwaves, it said.
Now the IPCC has produced a follow-up looking at the impact on the oceans and the cryosphere – the bits of the earth that are covered in ice. This report is no more cheerful than the last one.
It says that our oceans, ice sheets and glaciers are absorbing the bulk of rising temperatures and that the impacts are already evident, from the top of the highest mountain to the bottom of the oceans – and they are affecting everyone. Climate change makes the oceans warmer and more acidic, while reducing the oxygen content, with knock-on effects for everything that lives in it.
Warming temperatures are already shrinking Arctic sea ice and the loss of ice from Greenland and the Antarctic is contributing seven times as much to sea level rise as it was just 20 years ago. As a result, sea levels are rising at unprecedented rates and the world could see a 2-metre rise in sea levels by the end of the century in the most extreme scenario.
Melting permafrost in the Arctic and Siberia could release huge amounts of locked-up CO2 and methane, further exacerbating the warming of the planet.
Meanwhile, glaciers could shrink by 20% this century, with some regions such as Central Europe seeing a reduction of more than 80% and Arctic permafrost faces widespread disappearance. It sounds like a geography lesson. But all of this adds up to serious impacts for all of us. The glaciers in the Himalayas provide water for almost 2 billion people and a third of it is predicted to have melted by the time today’s children are adults.
“The open sea, the Arctic, the Antarctic and the high mountains may seem far away to many people,” said IPCC chair Hoesung Lee. “But we depend on them and are influenced by them directly and indirectly in many ways - for weather and climate, for food and water, for energy, trade, transport, recreation and tourism, for health and wellbeing, for culture and identity.”
Some island nations will become uninhabitable by the end of the century – the highest point in the Maldives, for example, is about eight feet above sea level, and the average height above sea level is about four feet. It’s not just islands that are at risk. More than a quarter of the world’s population live within 100km of the coast, and less than 100 metres above sea level, including 17 cities with populations of five million or more. Examples of how this will affect people include the Mekong Delta in South East Asia, where more ferocious storms and higher sea levels will make the water more saline and have a potentially devastating effect on harvests and food prices.
Residents of coastal cities and towns could see what were previously once-in-a-century events, such as massive floods, storm surges and extreme rainfall, becoming annual occurrences by 2050. As well as causing severe damage to property and local economies, these events could lead to a wave of climate change-induced migration, increasing already febrile social tensions.
The fish stocks that we depend on for our food are going to fall by up to a quarter due to the oceans becoming warmer and more acidic, with marine mammals also suffering a 15% decline and “almost all coral reefs” set to degrade.
And if you live in the mountains, home to a tenth of the world’s population, there will be more landslides as glaciers recede, and less water, which will hit everything from food production to hydro-electric power production and tourism.
“The findings of this report are a wake-up call for everyone – not just for those who live near the ocean,” said filmmaker and executive director of the Oceanic Preservation Society Louie Psihoyos. “Our entire global society is reliant on the ocean and ice systems that regulate our planet. We can no longer afford business as usual, and it is going to require the participation of each of us. These signals are too strong for us to ignore any longer – now is the time for bold, urgent climate action to avoid even more catastrophic impacts.”
However, there is some hope in the report. We can limit many of the effects on the oceans if we act now. “If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable,” says Lee. “We increase our ability to build resilience and there will be more benefits for sustainable development.”
The report points out the benefits of ambitious and effective adaptation for sustainable development and, conversely, the escalating costs and risks of delayed action. “Various adaptation approaches are already being implemented, often in response to flooding events, and the report highlights the diversity of options available for each context to develop integrated responses anticipating the full scale of future sea level rise,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, one of the authors.
Strongly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and carefully managing the use of natural resources would make it possible to preserve the ocean and cryosphere as a source of opportunities that support adaptation to future changes, limit risks to livelihoods and offer multiple additional societal benefits, the report adds, but it is not going to be easy.
“We will only be able to keep global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels if we effect unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society, including energy, land and ecosystems, urban and infrastructure as well as industry. The ambitious climate policies and emissions reductions required to deliver the Paris Agreement will also protect the ocean and cryosphere – and ultimately sustain all life on Earth,” said Debra Roberts, another co-author.
“The more decisively and the earlier we act, the more able we will be to address unavoidable changes, manage risks, improve our lives and achieve sustainability for ecosystems and people around the world – today and in the future,” Roberts said.

Links

Drought Plan Must Factor In Climate Change

Sydney Morning Herald - Editorial

There is a case for drought relief but it must encourage farmers to adapt to the changing climate.

August root-zone soil moisture data
Source: BoM

As country towns across the inland run out of drinking water, the federal government has started to show its concern for farmers affected by the drought.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison went to Dalby in Queensland last week to announce a $100 million drought package and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has taken time off his day job for a three-day tour of NSW and Queensland.
On one hand, country people will be comforted that the government is paying attention to their plight. On the other, they will ask whether another parade of politicians putting on moleskins and fronting a press pack in the dust will make any difference.
Everyone says the government needs to do something but for now the government’s basic approach is to dribble out more money and hope that it rains.
That is probably all that can be done in a crisis.
But it is not the whole answer. It ignores the crucial issue of what to do if the scientists are right and droughts are becoming longer and more frequent.
This question should not be conflated with the equally important issue of whether Australia should have a stronger climate change policy.
Deeper cuts in Australia’s carbon emissions are needed to help slow the rise in global temperatures but it will not solve the farmers’ problems overnight. Scientists say droughts will get worse for decades.
The Herald backs drought assistance to help farmers cope but it should be fair and efficient and it should be designed to encourage farmers to adjust to the new climate conditions.
In fact, the Productivity Commission says a lot of money is already being spent. Sheep, cattle and grain farmers in 2017-18 received about $1.3 billion in state and federal government subsidies. Those farmers now receive 5.8 per cent of their income as subsidies from the government, compared with just 3.7 per cent five years ago, a higher rate of subsidy than any industry sector.
Farmers also receive lots of other indirect help such as state subsidies on freight for fodder as well as generous household payments worth up to $37,000 per couple, far more than age pensioners or single parents.
Yet many people who receive drought relief are not poor. The latest drought package has allowed people with assets up to $5 million to apply.
Mr Morrison says this is not welfare but it is still taxpayers’ money and it should be spent prudently.
Sometimes it seems it is not. The government was left red-faced this week when it emerged that Moyne Shire in western Victoria that got $1 million under Mr Morrison’s announcement was not actually affected by the drought. Equally, it appears that former “drought envoy” Barnaby Joyce was was not required to produce a report to justify his salary and expenses.
Many economists are concerned more deeply that the cash will distort farmers' decisions about how to react to the changing climate. For instance, some drought assistance compensates farmers who decided not to manage their risk by selling stock at a better price early in the drought.
Farmers groups sometimes call for more dams as a panacea. But it is often hard to produce a long-term business case for them. Fans of dams also often ignore the risk that they will reduce water flows to surrounding farms and the environment.
Unfortunately, even with the best government plan, climate change will reshape Australia’s rural society.
Some farmers will adjust their methods and succeed. Some will decide to sell up their farms to big businesses and do something else. Governments should help those in need but rural Australia must accept that the times are changing.

Links