26/06/2021

(Phys.org) Crushing Climate Impacts To Hit Sooner Than Feared: Draft UN Report

Phys.org - Marlowe Hood | Patrick Galey | Kelly MacNamara

The report details the sobering consequences of humanity's greenhouse gas pollution.

Climate change will fundamentally reshape life on Earth in the coming decades, even if humans can tame planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, according to a landmark draft report from the UN's climate science advisors obtained by AFP.

Species extinction, more widespread disease, unliveable heat, ecosystem collapse, cities menaced by rising seas—these and other devastating climate impacts are accelerating and bound to become painfully obvious before a child born today turns 30.

The choices societies make now will determine whether our species thrives or simply survives as the 21st century unfolds, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in a draft report seen exclusively by AFP.

But dangerous thresholds are closer than once thought, and dire consequences stemming from decades of unbridled carbon pollution are unavoidable in the short term.

"The worst is yet to come, affecting our children's and grandchildren's lives much more than our own," the report says.

By far the most comprehensive catalogue ever assembled of how climate change is upending our world, the report reads like a 4,000-page indictment of humanity's stewardship of the planet.

But the document, designed to influence critical policy decisions, is not scheduled for release until February 2022—too late for crunch UN summits this year on climate, biodiversity and food systems, some scientists say.

In response to AFP's reporting, the IPCC released a statement saying it "does not comment on the contents of draft reports while work is still ongoing".

Coral reefs, like Australia's Great Barrier Reef pictured here, are particularly vulnerable.

Allies into enemies

The draft report comes at a time of global "eco-awakening" and serves as a reality check against a slew of ill-defined net-zero promises by governments and corporations worldwide.

The challenges it highlights are systemic, woven into the very fabric of daily life.

They are also deeply unfair: those least responsible for global warming will suffer disproportionately, the report makes clear.

And it shows that even as we spew record amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we are undermining the capacity of forests and oceans to absorb them, turning our greatest natural allies in the fight against warming into enemies.

It warns that previous major climate shocks dramatically altered the environment and wiped out most species, raising the question of whether humanity is sowing the seeds of its own demise.

"Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems," it says.

"Humans cannot."

The health impacts are broad, from increasing malnutrition to heat stress and disease.

'Irreversible consequences'

There are at least four main takeaways in the draft report, which may be subject to minor changes in the coming months as the IPCC shifts its focus to a key executive summary for policymakers.

The first is that with 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming clocked so far, the climate is already changing.

A decade ago, scientists believed that limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius above mid-19th century levels would be enough to safeguard our future.

That goal is enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement, adopted by nearly 200 nations who vowed to collectively cap warming at "well below" two degrees Celsius—and 1.5 degrees if possible.

On current trends, we're heading for three degrees Celsius at best.

Earlier models predicted we were not likely to see Earth-altering climate change before 2100.

Drought risk worldwide.

But the UN draft report says that prolonged warming even beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius could produce "progressively serious, centuries' long and, in some cases, irreversible consequences".

Last month, the World Meteorological Organization projected a 40 percent chance that Earth will cross the 1.5-degree threshold for at least one year by 2026.

For some plants and animals, it could be too late.

"Even at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, conditions will change beyond many organisms' ability to adapt," the report notes.

Coral reefs—ecosystems on which half a billion people depend—are one example.

Indigenous populations in the Arctic face cultural extinction as the environment upon which their livelihoods and history are built melts beneath their snow shoes.

A warming world has also increased the length of fire seasons, doubled potential burnable areas, and contributed to food systems losses.

Climate change puts at risk the ecosystems that millions of people rely on.

Get ready

The world must face up to this reality and prepare for the onslaught—a second major takeaway of the report.

"Current levels of adaptation will be inadequate to respond to future climate risks," it cautions.

Mid-century projections—even under an optimistic scenario of two degrees Celsius of warming—make this an understatement.

Tens of millions more people are likely to face chronic hunger by 2050, and 130 million more could experience extreme poverty within a decade if inequality is allowed to deepen.

In 2050, coastal cities on the "frontline" of the climate crisis will see hundreds of millions of people at risk from floods and increasingly frequent storm surges made more deadly by rising seas.

Some 350 million more people living in urban areas will be exposed to water scarcity from severe droughts at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming—410 million at two degrees Celsius.

Deforestation, drought and fires in the Amazon could transform part of the rainforest into a grassland.

That extra half-a-degree will also mean 420 million more people exposed to extreme and potentially lethal heatwaves.

"Adaptation costs for Africa are projected to increase by tens of billions of dollars per year with warming greater than two degrees," the report cautions.

Point of no return

Thirdly, the report outlines the danger of compound and cascading impacts, along with point-of-no-return thresholds in the climate system known as tipping points, which scientists have barely begun to measure and understand.

A dozen temperature trip wires have now been identified in the climate system for irreversible and potentially catastrophic change.

Recent research has shown that warming of two degrees Celsius could push the melting of ice sheets atop Greenland and the West Antarctic—with enough frozen water to lift oceans 13 metres (43 feet)—past a point of no return.

Other tipping points could see the Amazon basin morph from tropical forest to savannah, and billions of tonnes of carbon leech from Siberia's permafrost, fuelling further warming.

Arctic species like polar bears are expected to be among the first affected.

In the more immediate future, some regions—eastern Brazil, Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, central China—and coastlines almost everywhere could be battered by multiple climate calamities at once: drought, heatwaves, cyclones, wildfires, flooding.

But global warming impacts are also amplified by all the other ways that humanity has shattered Earth's equilibrium.

These include "losses of habitat and resilience, over-exploitation, water extraction, pollution, invasive non-native species and dispersal of pests and diseases," the report says.

There is no easy solution to such a tangle of problems, said Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank and author of the landmark Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.

"The world is confronting a complex set of interwoven challenges," said Stern, who did not contribute to the IPCC report.

"Unless you tackle them together, you are not going to do very well on any of them."

Urgent and significant reductions in pollution can limit the climate damage.
'Transformational change'

There is very little good news in the report, but the IPCC stresses that much can be done to avoid worst-case scenarios and prepare for impacts that can no longer be averted, the final takeaway.

Conservation and restoration of so-called blue carbon ecosystems—kelp and mangrove forests, for example—enhance carbon stocks and protect against storm surges, as well as providing wildlife habitats, coastal livelihoods and food security.

Transitioning to more plant-based diets could also reduce food-related emissions as much as 70 percent by 2050.

But simply swapping a gas guzzler for a Tesla or planting billions of trees to offset business-as-usual isn't going to cut it, the report warns.

"We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviours at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions and governments," it says.

Links
at No comments:

(USA PBS) A Leaked UN Report Warns ‘Worst Is Yet To Come’ On Climate Change. Here’s How You Can Help

PBS NewsHour - William Brangham | Murrey Jacobson


A leaked draft report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints the starkest picture yet of the accelerating danger caused by human use of coal, oil, and gas.

It warns of coming unlivable heat waves, widespread hunger and drought, rising sea levels and extinction.

To understand the report's warnings, William Brangham turns to atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayoe.

TRANSCRIPT

Judy Woodruff:

A leaked draft report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints the starkest picture yet of the real and accelerating danger caused by humans' use of coal, oil, and gas.

William Brangham has the latest. 

William Brangham:

That's right, Judy.

This is a draft report, so it may still change. And it was obtained by the AFP, the Agence France-Presse., even so, the report says the threat from climate change is real, it's here, and it's getting worse.

It lays out a myriad of impacts, unlivable heat waves, widespread hunger and drought, rising sea levels that will force millions from their homes, and the extinction of many species.

For a U.N. agency, the draft language is blunt, saying — quote — "The worst is yet to come, affecting our children's and grandchildren's lives much more than our own."

For more on this, we turn to atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe. She's authored over 100 research papers, written many climate reports, and currently teaches at Texas Tech University. She's also the chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy.

Professor Hayhoe, very good to have you back on the "NewsHour."

The UNIPCC keeps saying this is a draft, it may change, but I think it's pretty clear to say this language is incredibly stark for the U.N.

What do you see as the main points to take away from this draft?

Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Scientist, Texas Tech University:

I can't comment specifically on the contents of the draft because it is a confidential document that was provided to governments and experts for review.

But what I can say is that the results should be no surprise, because we have known since the 1800s that digging up and burning coal then, now gas and oil, are producing heat-trapping gases that are wrapping an extra blanket on the planet.

In 1965, scientists were sufficiently concerned about the risks of climate change for humans that they formally warned a U.S. president. And that was Lyndon B. Johnson. The IPCC report on the 1.5-degree target that came out in 2018 was absolutely clear. They said every bit of warming matters, every action matters, every choice matters, and, really, the time to act is now.

William Brangham:

It seems that, just from what we understand of the draft language, that this points to very overtly so many other threads of our lives, the food that we eat, the air that we breathe, whether we can walk outside in temperatures that don't burn us.

I mean, it seems like it is stretching to every aspect of what it takes to survive on Earth.

Katharine Hayhoe:

That is exactly what is at stake.

After the polar bear, we are next. Climate change is not something that needs to be moved up any of our priority lists. The only reason we care about it is because it affects every aspect of our lives, from literally the air we breathe, to the food we eat, to the safety of our homes, to our economy, to the health of our children.

I'm part of an organization called Science Moms, where we connect climate change to moms and how we care about our kids.

And one of my fellow Science Moms, Joellen Russell, who's at Arizona, she said today — she said: I had to wake my kids up at 5:00 a.m., so they could go outside to play because it was too hot and dangerous for them to play later in the day.

How does that not matter to any parent?

William Brangham:

I'm always leery of saying, well, this will be a turning point, this heat wave, this drought, this loss of ice.

I wonder, why do you think it has us to take so long to appreciate the severity of this situation?

Katharine Hayhoe:

We humans are really good at psychologically distancing ourselves from things that we think will matter in the future, but not now, from how much money we save for retirement, or how much we exercise, or don't, or what we eat and what we shouldn't.

And it's same with climate change. It turns out, in the U.S., almost three-quarters of the people would say, oh, yes, climate change is real, it will affect future generations, it will affect plants and animals, it will affect people who live in countries far away.

But when you say, do you think it will affect you, the number drops precipitously to just over 40 percent. That gap is our biggest problem, not the gap of people who say it isn't real, the gap of those of us who say is real, but we don't think it matters.

William Brangham:

Right. I remember you saying before about how the two great myths are, it won't affect me, and there's nothing that I can do.

So, for — this report certainly blows away that first myth, as you are saying. This certainly affects everybody that lives on this planet.

What about that second issue, though? For someone who is hearing this news and paying attention to this, and despairing, rightly so, what do you say to them?

Katharine Hayhoe:

To them I say, you know what? Every single one of us can make a difference.

And here's the amazing thing. It all begins by talking about it, by having a conversation about why it matters, how it connects to what we're already passionate about, whether we're a mom, whether we live in California and we're worried about wildfires, whether we're worried about bigger, stronger hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, whether we're a farmer, whether we're a business owner, whether we care about national security.

Talk about why it matters and talk about what we can do to fix it, from individual actions, like efficiency, clean energy, electric cars, reducing our meat intake, eating more plants, to much bigger scale. What can our company do? What could our school or university do? How could our place of worship help? How could our city get in on the action?

Cities are really where it's at when it comes to climate action. We have to recognize that climate action is not a giant boulder sitting at the very bottom of the hill with only one or two hands trying to push it up an impossibly steep cliff. The boulder is already at the top of the hill. It's already starting to roll down. It's already got millions of hands on it. It just isn't going fast enough.

William Brangham:

Another aspect that the U.N. report, this draft report touches on is our seeming failure at doing real adaptation to the threats we're already seeing, from rising seas, to droughts, to agriculture.

What would you counsel governmental leaders to be doing on that front, to deal with the threats that are here today, even as we also try to deal with emissions longer term?

Katharine Hayhoe:

Absolutely.

We no longer have a choice between cutting our carbon emissions or adapting to climate change. We have to do both, because the third alternative is suffering. It's as if we have been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for years and even decades. You might have some spots on your lungs and impaired breathing, but we don't have emphysema, we don't have lung cancer, and we're not dead yet.

So how can we prepare for that future? We have to prepare our water systems, our infrastructure, our buildings, our food systems, even our national security systems. We have to prepare them for the changes that are coming.

And we're already doing that. Adaptation is already happening. And along the way, it can save us money, it can clean up our air and our water, and it can provide us with much more healthy and livable cities too.

William Brangham:

All right, Professor Katharine Hayhoe, always good to see you. Thank you very much for being here.

Katharine Hayhoe:

Thank you for having me.

Links
at No comments:

(AU The Conversation) US Scheme Used By Australian Farmers Reveals The Dangers Of Trading Soil Carbon To Tackle Climate Change

The Conversation -  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 

Shutterstock
Authors
  •  is Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, University of New England
  •  is Adjunct Professor, University of New England
  •  is Associate Professor, University of New England
  •  is Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO
  •  is Associate Professor of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Tasmania
  •  is Professor of Global Change, Queensland University of Technology
  •  is Professor & Director, Primary Industries Climate Challenges Centre, The University of Melbourne
  •  is Associate Professor, Monash University
  •  is Research Leader Pastures an Rangelands, The University of Melbourne     
Soil carbon is in the spotlight in Australia.

A key plank in the Morrison government’s technology-led emissions reduction policy, it involves changing farming techniques so soils store more carbon from the atmosphere.

Farmers can encourage and accelerate this process through methods that increase plant production, such as improving nutrient management or sowing permanent pastures.

For each unit of atmospheric carbon they remove in this way, farmers can earn “carbon credits” to be sold in emissions trading markets.

But not all carbon credits are created equal.

In one high-profile deal in January, an Australian farm sold soil carbon credits to Microsoft under a scheme based in the United States.

We analysed the methodology behind the trade, and found some increases in soil carbon claimed under the scheme were far too optimistic.

It’s just one of several problems raised by the sale of carbon credits offshore.

If not addressed, the credibility of carbon trading will be undermined. Ultimately the climate - and the planet - will be the loser.

The integrity of soil carbon trading must be assured. Shutterstock

What is soil carbon trading?

Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air through photosynthesis. As plants decompose, carbon-laden organic matter is added to the soil. If more organic matter is added than is lost, soil carbon levels increase.

Carbon trading schemes require the increase in soil carbon levels to be measured. The measurement methods are well-established, but can be costly and complex because they involve collecting and analysing large numbers of soil samples. And different carbon credit schemes measure the change in different ways - some more robust than others.

The Australian government’s Emissions Reduction Fund has a rigorous approach to soil sampling, laboratory analysis and calculation of credits. This ensures only genuine removals of atmospheric carbon are rewarded, in the form of “Australian Carbon Credit Units”.

Farmers can choose other schemes under which to earn carbon credits, such as the US-based carbon offset platform Regen Network.

Regen Network’s method for estimating soil carbon largely involves collecting data via satellite imagery. The extent of physical on-the-ground soil sampling is limited.

Regen Network issues “CarbonPlus credits” to farmers deemed to have increased soil carbon stores. Farmers then sell these credits on the Regen Network trading platform.

Regen Network video explaining its remote sensing methods.

‘A number of concerns’

It was Regen Network which sold Microsoft the soil carbon credits generated by an Australian farm, Wilmot Station. Wilmot is owned by the Macdoch Group, and other Macdoch properties have also claimed carbon credits under the Regen Scheme.

Regen Network should be applauded for making its methods and calculations available online. And we appreciate Regen’s open, collaborative approach to developing its methods.

However, we have reviewed their documents and have a number of concerns:

  • the dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling

  • Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated

  • The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly uncertain.

Wilmot increased soil carbon, or “sequestration”, through changes to grazing and pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from 2018 to 2019.

These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has documented soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.

We believe inaccurate methods have led to the carbon increase being overestimated. Thus, it appears excess carbon credits may have been awarded.

Many carbon trading schemes apply rules to ensure integrity is maintained. These include:

  • an “additionality test” to ensure the extra carbon storage in the soil would not have happened anyway. It would prevent, for example, farmers claiming credits for practices they adopted in the past

  • ensuring sequestered carbon is maintained over time

  • disallowing double-counting of credits – for example, by preventing a country claiming credits that have been sold offshore.

The Emissions Reduction Fund and other well-recognised international schemes, such as Verra and Gold Standard, apply these rules stringently. Regen Network’s safeguards are less rigorous.

Responses to these claims from Regen Network and Macdoch Group can be found at the end of this article. A full response from Regen can also be found here.

Carbon trading is a way for farmers to make money by changing their land management practices. Shutterstock
Not in the national interest?

Putting aside the problems noted above, the offshore sale of soil carbon credits generated by Australian farmers raises other concerns.

First, selling credits offshore means Australia loses out, by not being able to claim the abatement towards our own government and industry targets.

Second, soil carbon does not have unlimited emissions reduction potential. The quantum of carbon that can be stored in each hectare of soil is constrained, and limited by factors such as land availability and climate change. So measures to increase soil carbon should not detract from society’s efforts to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use.

And third, ensuring carbon remains in soil long after it’s deposited is a challenge because soil microbes break down organic matter. Carbon credit schemes commonly manage this by requiring a “buffer” of unsold credits. If stored carbon is lost, farmers must relinquish credits from the buffer.

If the loss is greater than the buffer, credits must be purchased to make up the difference. This exposes farmers to financial risk, especially if carbon prices rise.

Poorly managed carbon trading schemes can put farmers at financial risk. Shutterstock
Getting it right

Soil carbon is a promising way for Australia to substantially reduce its emissions. But methods used to measure gains in soil carbon must be accurate.

Carbon markets must be regulated to ensure credit is awarded for genuine abatement, and risks to farmers are limited. And the extent to which offshore carbon markets prevent Australia from meeting its own obligations to reduce emissions should be clarified and managed.

Improving the integrity of soil carbon trading will have benefits beyond emissions reduction. It will also improve soil health and farm productivity, helping agriculture become more resilient under climate change.


Regen Network Response

Regen Network provided The Conversation with a response to concerns raised in this article. The full nine-page statement provided by Regen Network is available here.

The following is a brief summary of Regen Network’s statement:

- Limited on-ground soil sampling: Regen Network said its usual minimum number of soil samples was not reached in the case of Wilmot Station, because historical soil samples - taken before the project began - were used. To compensate for this, relevant sample data from a different farm was combined with data from Wilmot.

“We understand the use of ancillary data does not follow best practice and our team is working hard to ensure future projects are run using a sufficient number of samples,” Regen Network said.

- Bulk density: Regen Network said the historical sample data from Wilmot did not include “bulk density” measurements needed to estimate carbon stocks, which required “deviations” from its usual methodology. However the company was taking steps to ensure such estimates in future projects “can be provided with higher degrees of accuracy”.

- Gravel content: Regen Network said lab reports for soil samples included only the weight, not volume, of gravel present. “Best sampling practice should include the gravel volume as an essential parameter for accurate bulk density measurements. We will make sure to address this in our next round of upgrades and appreciate the observation!” the statement said.

- Remote sensing of vegetation: Regen Network said it did not use vegetation assessment at Wilmot station. It tested a vegetation assessment index at another property and found it ineffective at estimating soil carbon. At Wilmot station Regen used so-called individual “spectral bands” to estimate soil carbon at locations where on-ground sampling was not undertaken.

- Sequestration rates at Wilmot: Regen Network said while it was difficult to directly compare local sequestration rates across climatic and geologic zones, the sequestration rates for the projects in question “fall within the relatively wide range of sequestration rates” reported in key scientific studies.

Regen Network said its methodology “provides a conservative estimate on the final number of credits issued”. Its statement outlines the steps taken to ensure soil carbon levels are not overestimated.

- Integrity safeguards: Regen Network said it employs standards “based both on existing standards of reputable programs […] and inputs from project developers, in order to come up with a standard that not only is rigorous but also practical”. Regen Network takes steps to ensure additionality and permanence of carbon stores, as well as avoid double counting of carbon credits generated through their platform.

A more detailed response from Regen Network can be found here.

Wilmot Station Response

Wilmot Station provided the following response from Alasdair Macleod, chairman of Macdoch Group. It has been edited for brevity:

We entered into the deals with Regen Network/Microsoft because we wanted to give a hint of the huge potential that we believe exists for farmers in Australia and globally to sequester soil carbon which can be sold through offset markets or via other methods of value creation.

Whilst we recognise that the soil carbon credits generated on the Macdoch Group properties in the Regen Network/Microsoft deal will not be included in Australia’s national carbon accounts, it is our hope that over time the regulated market will move towards including appropriately rigorous transactions such as these in some form.

At the same time we have also been working closely with the Australian government, industry organisations, academia and other interested parties on Macdoch Group properties to develop appropriate soil carbon methodologies under the government’s Climate Solutions Fund.

This is because carbon measurement methodologies are an evolving science. We have always acknowledged and will welcome improvements that will be made over the coming years to the methodologies utilised by both the voluntary and regulated markets.

In any event it has become clear that there is huge demand from the private sector for offset deals of this nature and we will continue to work towards ensuring that other farmers can take advantage of the opportunities that will become available to those that are farming in a carbon-friendly fashion.

Links
at No comments: