22/02/2020

The One War That The Human Species Can’t Lose

New Yorker

The ice in Antarctica is melting six times faster than it did forty years ago, resulting in more calving of icebergs—with existential stakes. Photograph by Robin Wright
On the final day of my expedition to Antarctica last year, ten of us set out on a Zodiac to tour dozens of icebergs in nature’s wondrous ocean museum. The frozen sculptures glistened in exquisite hues of blue and cyan; iceberg colors vary by the density of air bubbles. Each was formed after snapping off an ancient glacier. The iceberg that sank the Titanic in the Atlantic, in 1912, was considered a mere “bergy bit,” or a smaller piece of floating ice; it melted within a couple of years. The ones we saw around Antarctica were massive.
Occasionally, we spotted blubbery elephant seals (which can weigh more than four tons) napping on icebergs, or Adélie penguins (so named by a French explorer, for his wife) leaping among them, or a Humpback whale’s blow unnervingly nearby. As we headed back to the ship, the naturalist steering the Zodiac suddenly turned off the motor. “Listen,” he said. Antarctica is usually a powerfully silent continent except for the gusting winds or the lapping waves on its coastline. He put his finger up, signalling to wait for it. We sat motionless. A thundering crack then ripped through the air, echoing across the water until it felt like it was going off inside my head. We watched a towering slice of the continent break off and crash into the Southern Ocean. It felt cataclysmic.
For almost a half century, I’ve covered wars, revolutions and uprisings on four continents, many for years on end. I’ve always been an outside observer watching as others killed each other. I lamented the loss of human life—and the warring parties’ self-destructive practices—from an emotional distance. In Antarctica, I saw war through a different prism. And I was the enemy. “Humans will be but a blip in the span of Earth’s history,” Wayne Ranney, a naturalist and geologist on the expedition, told me. “The only question is how long the blip will be.”
Last week, the temperature in Antarctica hit almost seventy degrees—the hottest in recorded history. It wasn’t a one-day fluke. Famed for its snowscapes, the Earth’s coldest, wildest, windiest, highest, and most mysterious continent has been experiencing a heat wave. A few days earlier, an Antarctic weather station recorded temperatures in the mid-sixties. It was colder in Washington, D.C., where I live. Images of northern Antarctica captured vast swaths of barren brown terrain devoid of ice and with only small puddle-like patches of snow.
The problem is not whether a new record was set, “it’s the longer-term trend that makes those records more likely to happen more often,” John Nielsen-Gammon, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A. & M. University, told me this week. “It’s sort of like a forest where trees are constantly growing and trees are dying, but if they start dying faster than they can grow back, then you eventually lose the forest,” he said. “The same thing applies to glaciers. Glaciers flow out to the ocean and break off, but if they break off faster then the glacier retreats and you lose ice—and then the sea level goes up around the world.”
The iceberg that I watched break off from Antarctica was part of a process called calving. It’s normal and a necessary step in nature’s cycle, except that it’s now happening a lot faster and in larger chunks—with existential stakes. The ice in Antarctica is now melting six times faster than it did forty years ago, Eric Rignot, an Earth scientist at the University of California, Irvine, and a co-author of a major study of the continent’s ice health, told me.
This month, an iceberg measuring more than a hundred square miles—the size of the Mediterranean island of Malta, or twice the size of Washington, D.C.—broke off the Pine Island Glacier (lovingly known as PIG, for short) in West Antarctica. It then broke up into smaller “pig-lets,” according to the European Space Agency, which tracked them by satellite. The largest piglet was almost forty square miles.
The frozen continent is divided into West Antarctica and East Antarctica. (The South Pole is in East Antarctica.) Most of the melting and much of the big calving has happened in the West and along its eight hundred-mile peninsula. But, in September, an iceberg measuring more than six hundred square miles—or twenty-seven times the size of Manhattan—calved off the Amery Ice Shelf, in East Antarctica. Calving has accelerated in startling style. Two other huge soon-to-be bergs are being tracked as their crevices and cracks become visible from space. One is from PIG in the West, the other is forming off the Brunt Ice Shelf in the East.
The world’s largest iceberg—a colossus measuring more than two thousand square miles, or about the size of Delaware—broke off West Antarctica, in 2017. It was so big that maps of the continent had to be redrawn. It’s now slowly making its way around the Antarctic Peninsula, headed toward the Atlantic Ocean on a path known as “iceberg alley.” As icebergs move into warmer water, they begin to melt—and thus sea levels rise.
The amount of ice on Earth was pivotal in the creation of human civilization ten thousand years ago, a fact that paleo-climatologists only discovered in the late twentieth century. Scientists now say that ice is the key to peace among civilizations for millennia to come, too. “The stability and size and mass of Antarctica is not a bad proxy for how violent the world could become, in that human civilization was built on a stable climate,” Spencer Glendon, a senior fellow at the Woods Hole Research Center, explained to me. “For the first hundred and ninety thousand years that they were on the planet, humans moved from place to place to find temperate weather, as ice and deserts shifted and temperatures moved in wild swings. About 10,000 B.C., the climate stabilized. When it stabilized, the nice places stayed nice. A stable climate helped humans stop being nomads. And that’s why people settled,” creating time and space to create humankind’s first civilizations.
In physics terms, the climate stabilized because there was just the right percentage of ice on the planet, Glendon explained. Ice reflects, so sunlight bounces off it back into space and doesn’t overheat Earth or its inhabitants. That’s now changing, as Antarctica (and Greenland) shrink. For the past ten thousand years or so, glaciers shrank in summer and grew in winter, but they had a mean or average size that was stable over time, he said. “Now, all the glaciers are receding. And that’s because it’s warmer, so they shrink more in the summer and expand less in the winter—and there’s less and less ice.”
At least eighty per cent of the planet’s fresh water is also contained in Antarctica’s ice. Icebergs that melt help replenish supplies. Again, the issue is balance. If Antarctica were to completely melt, the oceans would rise around the world by up to two hundred feet, an apocalyptic event that would reconfigure the globe’s geography. The might and majesty of Antarctica—in its huge spiny peaks and frigidly uninhabitable plateaus—makes that prospect seem impossible. In winter, the temperature has reached as low as a hundred and forty-eight degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
Yet the process has begun. In 2018, a survey published in Nature reported that Antarctica lost more than three trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2017. That’s enough to fill Lake Erie twelve times over, according to Earther. A quarter of the glacier ice in West Antarctica is now unstable due to melting over the same period, a second report, by scientists at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling in Britain, concluded last year. New snowfall can no longer compensate for the losses.
Glaciers, and their iceberg offspring, take millennia to produce.
The iceberg that sunk the Titanic probably originated with a snowfall in Greenland, three thousand years ago, possibly around the time that King Tutankhamun reigned in ancient Egypt, according to one account. It probably broke off Greenland in 1910 or 1911 and started floating toward the Atlantic. By the time it was struck by the Titanic, in 1912, killing more than fifteen hundred passengers and crew, it was already melting.
“By 2035, the point of no return could be crossed,” Matthew Burrows, a former director at the National Intelligence Council, wrote in a report last year about global risks over the next fifteen years. That’s the point after which stopping the Earth’s temperature from rising by two degrees Celsius—or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit—will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, in turn triggering “a dangerous medley of global disasters.”
And that, in turn, goes back to ice and its role in fostering human civilization. “What’s coming—or is happening—is the end of the earth’s stability,” Glendon told me. “In human terms, that means a return to migration, but in a population of not just a few million, but several billion.”
Before I went to Antarctica, I checked in with Donald Perovich, a geophysicist at Dartmouth who tracks sea ice. We got to talking about wars. “You can argue that in all wars, there are winners and losers. Afterward, societies go on. There’s an opportunity to recover and move forward. If you approach climate change as a war, there are some really severe consequences across the board,” he told me. “This,” he added, “is the one war we can’t lose.”

Links

The Government's Sudden Passion For Climate Technology Is Newfound And Insincere

The Guardian

The call for technology before action is a specious distraction designed to paper over the plan to take no action
‘With the technology available now to begin deep decarbonisation, it’s time to acknowledge that when it comes to achieving net-zero emissions, failing to plan is planning to fail.’ Photograph: Lukas Schulze/Getty Images
Simon Holmes à Court is senior advisor to the Climate and Energy College at Melbourne University and sits on the board of the Smart Energy Council.

If you’re committed to the Paris agreement – to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees – then at a minimum, logically, scientifically, you’re committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
So far, at least 77 countries have committed to the target, as has every state and territory in Australia. The fact that prime minister Scott Morrison is pushing back hard against the calls for such a target sends yet another strong signal that his government still denies the need to tackle climate change.
Sensing it must be seen to do something, but committed to doing nothing substantive, the government is arguing that investing in technology is the superior pathway to… to… to what? Are billions of dollars of public funds about to be allocated to a strategy that delivers on an unspoken goal?
This passion for technology is newfound and insincere. In truth, our government has a long history of undermining climate technologies.
In the three years to 2016, the government ripped just shy of $1bn from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), the body charged with helping early stage technologies through to commercial launch.
The funding of a feasibility study for a coal power station in Collinsville and the foreshadowed gift of $11m to extend the life of the 42 years old Vales Point coal power station in the Hunter, demonstrate just how reluctant the Coalition is to let go of last century’s energy technologies.
One of the most promising and critical new technologies is the rapid maturation of the electric vehicle, but who can forget the government’s pushback against EVs during last year’s election?
Last November I visited the Leilac zero carbon cement project Belgium – an exciting project given that cement is responsible for 7% of global emissions, more than twice as much as aviation. The new process captures most of the carbon dioxide that’s ordinarily released to the atmosphere during cement manufacture. The technology, which can be powered by renewable energy, was developed in Bacchus Marsh, Victoria and was lured to Europe on the back of a €12 million grant and a price on carbon.
In the alternate universe where Arena and our carbon price weren’t smashed by ideological attacks, that world-changing technology would be proudly Australian made.
While there’s plenty of valuable research and development in our future, especially for the difficult to decarbonise sectors of cement, steel and aviation, the truth is that we already have the technology to deal with around 70% of global emissions.
The pathway is simple – electrify everything and swap fossil fuels for renewables. These technologies have come down in cost not because of boffins in laboratory coats, but because of innovation born of sustained deployment and ruthless competition.
Mike and Annie Cannon-Brooke’s Resilient Energy Collective is a case study for how far we’ve come. In just a handful of weeks the group has put together an emergency power product for restoring power to bushfire affected communities. The solar-powered, battery-backed system can be installed in a single day, and will be rolled out to 100 communities in as many days. The energy supply companies partnering in the project are stunned that the infrastructure is being rolled out in hours not months. Community members are amazed that they’re using solar power at night.
Likewise, Aemo, our grid operator, has just released a blueprint for reducing electricity sector emissions by 85%, using existing technologies and without compromising reliability. Industry is champing at the bit to implement such a plan — they just need a minister who believes in the end goal and is committed to resolving the roadblocks.
In reality, the call for technology before action is a specious distraction designed to paper over the plan to take no action. The greatest proponent of the frame is Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, one of a small cadre of almost respectable climate obfuscationists.
In the lead up to the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, Lomborg handpicked a panel of ancient Nobel laureates to rank 16 climate solutions. The four proposed carbon tax schemes were ranked dead last, and the top three projects deemed worthy of consideration were “marine cloud whitening”, energy research and development and “stratospheric aerosol insertion”.
The top-ranked solution would involve a global fleet of “1,900 unmanned ships spraying sea water mist into the air to thicken clouds” and reflect the sun’s rays back into space. The third solution involves fleets of planes spraying sulphur dioxide into the sky. The chemical would mimic the effects of volcanoes “reacting with water to form a hazy layer … spread around the globe … scattering and absorbing incoming sunlight”.
The first three years of the Coalition government focussed on tearing down climate policy. The next three used endless reviews that came to nothing – as intended.
In July 2014, Tony Abbott finally made good on his promise to dismantle Australia’s carbon price mechanism, our most effective and efficient climate policy. In doing so, not only did he throw away the best tool we had, he cheated Australian farmers out of earning billions from exporting carbon credits to Europe.
In 2015, Abbott managed to slash the renewable energy target – assisted in the background by Angus Taylor, the man now charged with reducing emissions – cutting future activity under the target by 40%.
The only half decent action has been the emissions reduction fund, called a fig leaf of a policy by the party’s once and future leader Malcolm Turnbull in 2009, whereby taxpayers, not polluters, buy carbon offsets. To date, the ERF has bought just 50m offsets, which doesn’t even cover the increase in emissions from just the LNG sector during the last 5 years.
Now the government is talking about a “technology investment target”, whatever that means. Will we be subjected to another barrage of lies that some magical technology exists to cut coal emissions? Remember CCS and HELE? Hopefully by now we all now know that “clean coal” is as real as healthy cigarettes.
If Scott Morrison is genuine about climate action, then sure, he should start by restoring the billion dollars ripped out of Arena. In fact, let’s give them a few hundred million a year to help Australian ideas reach their potential and give us a whole new export sector to replace the inevitable decline in coal exports. We have the resources, people and smarts to position Australia for great success in a carbon-constrained global economy.
At this point, the roadblocks to effective and affordable action are social and political, not technological.
So here we are again. Another strategy to kick the can down the road. The Finkel review bought the government a year of doing nothing in 2017, as did the national energy guarantee in 2018. The hollow climate solutions package helped the government escape scrutiny in 2019, however the “Black Summer” and the approaching November’s COP26 conference in Glasgow – where countries are expected to lift their commitments in the direction of the Paris agreement’s goals – leave the government with nowhere to hide.

Links

(AU) Climate Change Becomes Battleground In Bushfire Royal Commission

SBSAAP

Scott Morrison wants the bushfire royal commission to report back quickly so its advice and recommendations can be acted on before the next fire season.
Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed by bushfires in NSW this summer. Source: AAP
Prime Minister Scott Morrison unveiled the terms of reference for a royal commission into the devastating bushfires which burned across Australia on Thursday, but not everyone is impressed.
The terms of reference show a focus on which levels of government are responsible for preparedness, response, resilience and recovery from fires and how this can be better coordinated.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison discusses the royal comission on Thursday. AAP
The commissioners, led by former Defence Force chief Mark Binskin, are asked to keep in mind land management and hazard reduction, wildlife management and planning and development approvals.
But Mr Morrison has also explicitly acknowledged the role of climate change, and appointed ANU climate risk and environmental law professor Andrew Macintosh as one of the commissioners.
Former Federal Court judge Annabelle Bennett is the third commissioner.
"This royal commission accepts, it acknowledges, it understands the impact of climate change more broadly on the climatic conditions that Australia is living in," Mr Morrison said in Sydney.
"What this royal commission is looking at are the practical things that must be done to keep Australians safer and safe in longer, hotter, drier summers, in the conditions in which Australians will live into the future."
The commission will consider what legal framework is needed to better coordinate natural disaster responses across the country, including the possibility of the Federal Government being able to declare a national state of emergency.
Labor backs the royal commission but said the narrow terms of reference were a huge missed opportunity to look at how to reduce bushfire risk by acting to slow climate change.
"I think most Australians want to see the government actually take action now to reduce the risk of those bushfires in the future rather than deal with the effects of them down the track," opposition disaster and emergency management spokesman Murray Watt said in Queensland.
Similarly, former emergency service chiefs say credible measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are "the only way to keep Australians safe".
Former Emergency Management Victoria commissioner Craig Lapsley said this season's bushfires were so severe that areas where hazard reduction burns had been carried out - and even mown lawns - were torched.
The inquiry will also examine what actions can mitigate the impacts of natural disasters and whether Indigenous fire management practices could be better used.
The commission has been asked to finish by the end of August and collaborate with state inquiries, with the Federal Government keen to receive recommendations ahead of the next fire season.
More than 30 people died and thousands of homes were destroyed in horrific blazes that burned across Australia over the past spring and summer.

Links