21/09/2017

Silent Killer: Sweltering Planet Braces For Deadly Heat Shocks

ReutersLaurie Goering

As hurricanes and floods grab headlines, heatwaves associated with climate change are claiming lives around the world
Volunteers cover their heads with water-soaked towels, to beat the heat, while distributing water bottles, outside Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) in Karachi, Pakistan, June 25, 2015, during a heatwave that killed more than 1,000 people. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
When Hurricane Harvey blasted ashore in August, drowning south Texas in a year's worth of rain in just a few days, it left behind an estimated $150 billion in damage to sodden homes and inundated factories, and claimed about 60 lives.
Two weeks later, Hurricane Irma churned into Florida, killing at least 33 people there and causing billions more in damages - as well as brutal loss of life in the Caribbean.
But these storms may not be 2017's deadliest U.S. disaster. Instead, that title may go to a largely unseen killer: rising temperatures.
Over the last 30 years, increasingly broiling summer heat has claimed more American lives than flooding, tornadoes or hurricanes, according to the U.S. National Weather Service.
And the problem has not been limited to the United States. More than 35,000 people died during a European heatwave in 2003, and tens of thousands perished in Russia during extreme heat in 2010.
The threat is particularly severe in already sweltering places, from South Asia to the Gulf, and has been linked to a rise in migration out of hot and poor parts of rural Pakistan.
But experts say heat remains underestimated as a threat by governments, aid agencies and individuals. That's both because it's an invisible, hard-to-document disaster that claims lives largely behind closed doors - and because hot weather just doesn't strike many people as a serious threat.
"If you have a natural disaster like a cyclone or an earthquake or a flood, the impacts are immediate. Things get washed away, people drown. But heat is a silent killer," said Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate change researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales.
"In Australia, heatwaves kill more people than any other natural disaster - but no one realises the destruction they can cause. The attitude is, 'It's hot, suck it up, get on with it'."
Around the world, heat is a neglected and poorly understood disaster, in part because few of the deaths it produces are directly attributed to heatwaves.
Victims - many elderly, very young, poor or already unhealthy - often die at home, and not just of heat stroke but of existing health problems aggravated by heat and dehydration.
In India, for instance, a major risk factor for women - who die of heat far more often than men, researchers say - is the lack of an indoor toilet.
To avoid embarrassment or harassment, many women refrain from drinking water during the day to limit their trips to the toilet - a potentially deadly strategy during heatwaves.
"These deaths are recorded as normal deaths. But they wouldn't have happened if it wasn't so hot," said Gulrez Shah Azhar, an Indian heat researcher who works for the RAND Corporation, a global think tank.

Hotter cities
To find the true rate of deaths during heatwaves, health officials look at "excess" deaths - how many more people died than would otherwise be expected during that period.
In places used to dealing with hot conditions, there is a "diagnostics failure" in recognising the risks of extreme heat, noted Eric Klinenberg, an American sociologist and expert on a deadly 1995 Chicago heatwave.
In steamy cities like Miami, "there's a sense we know how to deal with heat here, while everybody else is complaining", he said. "There's a will not to see the risk."
City dwellers, from Bangkok to Cairo, face particular - and growing - risks. In many rural areas, trees and open land planted with crops help daytime heat subside at night, providing some respite.
But in cities, acres of concrete and asphalt absorb warmth during the day and radiate it back at night, creating heat islands that can be nearly as hot at night as during the day.
During Chicago's three-day heatwave in 1995, more than 730 people died, many of them older people living alone and already facing health problems. With city services overwhelmed, hospitals turned away emergency cases, and the city's morgue had to rent refrigerated trucks to store the dead.
With more than half the world's population now living in cities - and two-thirds of people expected to live in them by 2050 - finding ways to reduce urban heat will be crucial to saving lives as climate change ramps up heat extremes.
Children cool themselves under misting fans at the Australian Open tennis tournament at Melbourne Park, Australia, January 21, 2016. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
Cooling down
Many parts of the world, especially those that have already seen substantial heat deaths, are experimenting with ways to lower the risks.
In New York, and a host of other cities, authorities are painting roofs white to reflect more heat and cool inhabitants. They are planting more trees and preparing hospitals to deal with more heat stroke and other health problems when temperatures soar.
A pioneering heat action plan in Ahmedabad, a city in western India, for instance, automatically triggers deliveries of water to slum areas when temperatures hit dangerous levels, as well as opening neighbourhood cooling centres.
Simple measures like this are a clear, economical way to save lives, their backers say.
"The cost of setting up a heat preparedness plan is orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of lives. It's background noise," said Azhar, who helped develop the Ahmedabad plan after a 2010 heatwave that killed more than 1,300 people in the city.
In other countries, architectural styles designed to deal with heat - often abandoned when air conditioning became available - are being revived.
Construction workers, who can't avoid being outside on hot days, are being kitted out with gel-filled cooling vests and collars.
Governments are experimenting with cloud-seeding to bring cooling rain. And some scientists are already discussing "geoengineering" the planet using sun shields in space or sulfur particles in the atmosphere to reflect the sun's heat.
China, one of the countries grappling with worsening heatwaves, is trying to create "sponge cities" with abundant trees and green areas that can absorb heavy rainfall, then gradually evaporate the cooling moisture back into the air.

Power to the people
In most hot places, people are advised to stay inside on sweltering days, drink more water, wear cool clothing and avoid strenuous activity. But those things can be hard to manage in practice when there's work to be done and deadlines to be met.
"I was working at home on a 45-degree (113-degree Fahrenheit) day, and the guy across the street was still building a home in that heat," recalled Perkins-Kirkpatrick, who lives in Sydney. "There needs to be more education that it's not okay to be outside in those conditions."
In rural areas, as well as many urban ones, lack of access to electricity can be one of the biggest risks during heatwaves.
India alone has 300 million people without a power connection, which means they cannot turn on a fan or air conditioning when temperatures soar.
In New Delhi, some of the poorest of the poor, living on the streets, sleep near the curb of busy roads at night, hoping to catch a breeze from passing cars.
When Azhar was growing up in the Indian city of Lucknow, in a home without electricity, "there was no escape" from debilitating summer heatwaves. "You're trapped and there is literally nothing you can do," he said.
Experts say one clear way to reduce growing health risks from heatwaves is to provide more of the world's population with access to power, particularly in the hottest areas.
"The best way to mitigate (heat deaths) is to get electricity" to run fans or air conditioning, said Steven J. Davis, a University of California, Irvine earth system science professor and one of the authors of a 2017 report that predicted a growing risk of widespread deaths during Indian heatwaves.
Global efforts, including as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, to bring power to those without it could play a significant role in reducing heat deaths, experts say.
But if action to curb climate change is not robust enough, heatwaves could more often overwhelm or break down power grids, leaving rich and poor without help to cool down, they warn.
Tourists at the Jokulsarlon, a glacier lagoon in southern Iceland where ice bergs breaking off from the Breidamerkurjokull glacier, July 4, 2017. Thomson Reuters Foundation/Thin Lei Win
Gains and losses
In many poor communities, deadly heat is driving innovation. In the slums of Bhubaneswar, a humid city in eastern India where temperatures last summer hit 46.8 degrees Celsius (116 degrees Fahrenheit), families have learned to soak jute sacks in water and place them on their tin roofs, to cool the inside.
And rickshaw drivers have added wet cooling mats to their vehicle roofs, drawing more customers and boosting their income.
"There was never a day all this summer that he didn't bring home 500 rupees ($8)- a third more than others did," said Kumari Behera, a Bhubaneswar resident whose son drives one of the "air-conditioned" rickshaws.
Intensifying heat presents many risks beyond growing loss of life. It is a contributor to longer and more intense droughts and water shortages that are destroying harvests and creating more severe forest fires, with choking smoke.
Higher temperatures can increase smog production in cities, as heat "cooks" pollution from vehicles, and extend the length of allergy seasons, prolonging periods of misery for millions.
And while rising temperatures may boost harvests in some parts of the world, extreme heat threatens to slash farm production in many areas, particularly of staple crops such as wheat, maize, rice and soybeans, scientists say.
In the shorter term, rising temperatures present opportunities for some cooler parts of the world, however.
In northern Canada, for instance, warmer weather is opening once frost-prone land to farming for the first time, raising the prospect of new harvests in new places.
"There's a lot more interest in taking a look at underdeveloped land in northern Ontario and Quebec because of changes in climate," said Rod Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Fishermen around the world, meanwhile, are finding different species in their nets, many driven into new waters by ocean warming. Iceland's fishermen alone have spotted more than 30 new species in the last two decades, as some old ones disappear.
"The gains and losses seem to be balanced for now. But in the long term, I think (the change) will be slightly positive," said Hreidar Thor Valtysson, an Icelandic natural resources specialist, whose children now catch mackerel near the Arctic Circle.

Disease, migration
Rising temperatures also look set to change the world's disease threats. Mosquitoes that spread potentially deadly viruses from Zika and dengue to chikungunya thrive better in warmer climates than their malaria-carrying cousins, researchers at Stanford University found.
That means malaria rates could fall in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, as temperatures rise and malaria-carrying mosquitoes struggle - or move to cooler areas of the continent.
But communities that see malaria diminish likely will face new threats, including from diseases that are less researched and have lower-funded eradication efforts.
"We have this intriguing prospect of the threat of malaria declining in Africa, while Zika, dengue and chikungunya become more of a danger," said Erin Mordecai, a Stanford University professor.
Fiercer heatwaves also are raising questions about the limits of humanity's ability to adapt.
Christian Clot, a French-Swiss explorer, has been testing humans' limits in extreme conditions, including the nearly 60-degree Celsius (140-degree Fahrenheit) heat of Iran's Dasht-e Lut desert.
What he and doctors have found is that the ability to do just about anything - including sweat, work and think - diminishes as exposure to extreme heat grows.
That is a worry with three in four people in the world expected to face deadly heat by the turn of the century, according to a study published in the journal Nature.
"We think we're stronger than nature - but we're not," Clot warned.
Researchers believe heat-related migration - already underway - will ramp up.
A 2014 study in Pakistan found that increasing heat - rather than worsening flooding, as thought - was a strong driver of migration out of agricultural villages over a 20-year period.
And in India's southern state of Tamil Nadu, Vinod Kumar's family is already on the move after heat and drought repeatedly wrecked their crops.
"At this time of year, these fields should be green with paddy shoots, but no one seems to be farming," he said, driving past arid land overgrown with scrub and thorns.
With too much heat and too little water, "it has become impossible to make a living from farming", Kumar said. He now drives a taxi in Chennai to get by.
Catalan farmers Pau Figueras Mundo (left), 36, and his father Xavier Figueras Costa, 62, watch over their sheep and goats in a field, in Jafre, in the northeast region of Girona, Spain, August 9, 2017. Thomson Reuters Foundation/Lin Taylor
Heat damage
Higher temperatures are also a driver of worsening wildfires that have scorched woods from Los Angeles to Italy and Canada this year, and killed more than 60 people in Portugal alone.
In northeast Spain, farmers spooked by soaring fire risk have moved herds of goats and sheep into nearby forests to clear underbrush, in an effort to reduce the chance of runaway blazes.
"We're very worried," said Pau Figueras Mundo, a 36-year-old herder, as his animals nibbled at the fringes of a forest.
Paradoxically, however, it's the relative lack of obvious damage from most heatwaves that results in them being underestimated as a threat, experts say.
"Heat is by no means taken as seriously by governments as hurricanes or earthquakes or floods. I believe that's because a lot of our system for providing relief and assistance is based on property damage," U.S. sociologist Klinenberg said.
Extreme heat can lead to the buckling of roads and railway lines, and reduce the capacity of power grids. But most of the damage remains "less photogenic" than other disasters, he said.
Preparing for worsening heat shocks will require planning and broader resilience-building efforts, experts say.
In Ethiopia, aid agency World Vision has helped rural communities re-grow felled forests to provide shade, hold more moisture in fields, and give farmers alternative ways to earn money when drought destroys crops.
"The more prepared we are for heat stress, the more that communities can conserve water and change their agricultural practices, (and) the more they can absorb acute stress," said Maggie Ibrahim, a resilience manager with World Vision.
Similar preparation needs to happen in many parts of the world, said Australian heat expert Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
"In Australia we have heat plans but they're not very detailed. There needs to be a national plan and money put into infrastructure - not just advice like drink water, stay inside and check on your elderly neighbours," she said.
That advice is good and necessary, but "it's not enough", she said. Soon "everyone" will be affected, including people out on a run or mothers walking their kids to school, she added.

Invisible disaster
One key problem in getting heat action plans in place - already a challenge with a largely invisible disaster threat - is the politics surrounding climate change.
Heatwaves are the hazard most clearly tied to global warming. But U.S. President Donald Trump's Republican-led administration has denied climate change is a significant risk.
That has hampered determined efforts by many U.S. cities, states and companies to prepare for what they see as increasingly evident climate threats.
Despite an international agreement to curb climate change reached in Paris in 2015, cuts in the use of fossil fuels around the world are not yet ambitious enough to meet the accord's goal of keeping warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.
Instead the world is on a path towards at least 3 to 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the turn of the century, scientists say.
"How is the global community going to respond to that?" Ibrahim asked. "Are we just going to accept millions of deaths? We do now around drought, but will we do that around heat exhaustion? And how are we going to manage the migration flows?"
"We are not at all prepared globally for the big numbers that will be affected," she said.
Texas and Florida, still recovering from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, may have particular reason to worry in the years ahead, scientists say.
An analysis by Climate Central, a U.S. non-profit science and media organisation, found that Houston by 2030 is likely to face "heat danger days" - when combined heat and humidity make temperatures feel like 105 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) - 110 days a year.
Miami will face 126 such days each year by 2030, it noted.
"A one-off every now and then we can recover from," said Perkins-Kirkpatrick. "But we'll be seeing this almost every summer in the next 40 or 50 years. We need to do something about it."

Links

Enough Tiptoeing Around. Let’s Make This Clear: Coal Kills People

The Guardian

Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson. We must urgently come to grips with this fact and reconnect with nature and our communities
‘How can journalists and editors report on the politics of coal on one page and bushfires around Sydney in September on another without making the connection?’ Photograph: Aaron Favila/AP
Coal kills people. This isn’t even slightly scientifically controversial.
From the mines to the trains to the climate disruption; from black lung to asthma, heat stress to hunger, fires to floods: coal is killing people in Australia and around the world right now.
Yet we are once again having what passes for political debate about extending the life of coal-fired power stations and, extraordinarily, building new ones. The conversation is completely disconnected from the fact that two thirds of Bangladesh was reported to be under water, record-breaking hurricanes were battering the US, and wildfires were roaring in both the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time.
Even environmental campaigners often only talk coyly about the impact of climate change on our “way of life”. It’s time we put it clearly: if Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce and their colleagues succeed in extending the life of the Liddell power station, let alone building new coal, they will kill people. Burning more coal, knowing what we know, is a deliberate act of arson, lighting a match in dry bushland, with homes just around the bend and a hot wind blowing in their direction.
It’s hard to say that. It’s hard to read it. But we must come to grips with this connection urgently.
And it is connection – and disconnection – which is at the heart of the problem, and which points the way to the only hope for a solution.
How is it that our politicians can be so drastically disconnected from the consequences of their actions? How can citizens not be out on the streets? How can corporate executives be continuing business as usual (a business as usual that is moving away from coal but still nowhere near fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate disruption)? How can journalists and editors report on the politics of coal on one page and bushfires around Sydney in September on another without making the connection?
The answer, I would suggest, is because connection is fundamentally at odds with how we have trained ourselves to see the world. Our economic, social and political system is based around disconnection. And our most vital and urgent task is to find ways to get over that, to draw each other and our ideas together, to see the world as the glorious interconnected ecosystem it is.
We are, today, at the end point of a millennia-long process of disconnection. Since we first built cities and started leaving the land we have been disconnecting from nature; losing sight of it, quite literally; losing our vocabulary of it, to the extent that blackberry is no longer a fruit to be plucked and eaten but a device to tie us to our desks when we’re on the toilet.
Nature was just the beginning. While this slow severing has been going on for thousands of years, the last few centuries – the reformation, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and capitalism – performed the amputation.
In capitalism, we have created the first social organising principle based on selfishness, the first system to make greed, competition, non-cooperation its credo. In Thatcherism, we have the declaration that there is no such thing as society. In neoliberalism, we have a system which alienates us from each other, from our labour, from democracy; a system which declares we have great choice while turning everything into a supermarket aisle full of different but identical toothpastes; a system which insists we have great freedoms while systematically removing more and more of our capacity to have any real control or influence over, or stake in anything real in our lives.
That’s why we can have politicians actively discussing doing something which not only makes no economic sense but will actually kill people, while most of the population turns away to binge-watch the next series on Netflix.
There is only one way through this – we have to reconnect. And it’s already happening. Around Australia and the world, people are seeking out reconnection in all sorts of ways. We are starting community groups, getting involved in community gardens and food co-ops, starting childcare and health co-ops, joining sharing groups instead of buying more stuff. Instead of always doing things on our own, as disconnected individuals, we are looking for innovative ways to work together, to eat together, to live together. And, excitingly, we’re banding together to create social and political forces to be reckoned with.
Bringing it right back to coal, tens of thousands of people are bypassing the politicians and corporations altogether, frustrated by their inability to think beyond coal, and setting up renewable energy cooperatives. From Canberra to Copenhagen, people are pooling their resources to jointly set up solar farms or windfarms, sharing the benefits not only among themselves but with all of us.
If all this seems terribly small, remember – going from 280 to 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is already causing havoc. With a few more parts per million, we could reach tipping points in the climate beyond which unimaginable disaster looms.
But there are tipping points in society, too. And, if we work together to rebuild connection, we can reach that tipping point first. We can turn this around, and maybe not only survive, but thrive.

*Tim Hollo is executive director of the Green Institute

Links

The Current Energy Debate Is Farcical. What Does This Government Stand For?

The Guardian*

Neither the government nor the opposition has yet produced a deliverable energy policy. Consumers know they’re being ripped off and Turnbull will pay
‘Malcolm Turnbull assumed the leadership with the expectation that he actually believed in a significant and urgent response to the climate challenge.’ Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
How bizarre can the energy debate get? Every time I think that we have heard it all, reached the “bottom”, or whatever, even stranger things happen – now almost daily.
Our political leaders have now spent years scoring points on each other, and attempting to shift the blame, indeed, doing everything they can to avoid addressing the issue of rapidly rising electricity and gas prices. Yet, ironically, they are collectively to blame.
In all this “colour and movement” neither the government, nor the opposition, has yet produced a believable and deliverable energy policy. That is, a policy to specify the path forward to a low-carbon society, demonstrating a genuine capacity to lower power prices and to guarantee supply.
The bottom line is an outcome you might reasonably have expected that they would have wanted to avoid. While consumers are totally confused about what our pollies are doing, they get their regular power bills, which they can’t understand, and the power companies certainly don’t help them in this respect, so they remain absolutely convinced that they are being “ripped off”, which of course they are!
One of the most disturbing aspects of all this is that the government seems to have lost its sense of what it stands for – or at least what the electorate had come to accept that it stood for.
For example, as a Liberal government supposedly believing in small government, little regulation, market processes and private enterprise, they now feel at home “shirtfronting” the board and management of a significant power company, AGL, pressuring them to reverse a board decision to close the Liddell power plant in 2022.
This has come on the heels of them pressuring gas companies to “reserve” a proportion of their output for the domestic market, rather than for the exports that they had been encouraged to pursue in the past.
While it is reasonable to expect that government should define a regulatory framework within which the power market would operate, this is certainly a “new” interpretation of “market forces” and of what it means to be a “conservative” or a “Liberal”. Isn’t it much more “socialist”? Is this but the early stages of the nationalisation of the power sector?
And this is a government led by Malcolm Turnbull, who assumed the leadership with the expectation that he actually believed in a significant and urgent response to the climate challenge – indeed, an issue on which he once, apparently, believed in passionately enough to cross the floor of the parliament.
Moreover, we all emerged from the last election saturated with the “promise” of “jobs and growth”. Just how many thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars of investment and growth, have been lost due to this short-term, political opportunism and game playing?
Finkel went to great lengths to recognise the political reality of the government’s objections to the best and second best, responses – namely, an emissions trading scheme and an emissions intensity scheme – proposing a technology neutral clean energy target (CET) to provide a clear direction and certainty for the essential transition to reach our Paris commitments by 2030. While this clearly contemplated the necessary further movement to renewables as a source of power, it still admitted a sizeable reliance on coal-fired power by that date.
It is worth pointing out that a true “conservative” response would be a purely market-based emissions trading scheme, using a market-determined carbon price to ensure the most cost-effective transition.
The suggestion that we may now need a new, supercritical, coal-fired power plant to fill a capacity gap left by the closure of Liddell is, quite frankly, farcical. When the private sector says they will not build or finance it, it is simply just a sop to the National party to even raise it as a possibility. But then, of course, in our “new conservatism” we don’t respect what markets are telling us, do we?
This “gap” would be easily filled by a combination of base-load solar thermal projects, batteries and some better demand management well before 2022. Having set the regulatory direction of the “market” with a CET, the government should stand back and let the technologies compete to deliver the most cost-effective and sustainable outcome.
It is also worth recognising that a new coal-fired power plant, if it could be built, may simply accelerate the closures of other older, less efficient, plants, so not actually closing the perceived “gap”.
Turnbull needs to rise well above this mire and deliver the leadership he promised on assuming the prime ministership. If he does, I believe the electorate would cut him a lot of slack. However, to continue as he is, he will surely lose the next election. It will be his failure to address the rising costs of power, housing, childcare and school fees, and other key elements of the cost of living, that will be decisive with voters.

*Dr John Hewson is a professor at ANU and a former leader of the Liberal party

Links

20/09/2017

Why The Wiring Of Our Brains Makes It Hard To Stop Climate Change

Los Angeles Times - David G. Victor* | Nick Obradovich* | Dillon Amaya*

Pedestrians walk in a flooded street as Tropical Storm Irma hits Charleston, S.C. on Sept. 11. (Mic Smith / Associated Press)
Houston has barely begun to dry out from Hurricane Harvey, and Florida faces a massive rebuilding effort after the Irma catastrophe. These two storms, among the most powerful in American history, are typical of the extreme weather events that are likely to become more common as the planet warms. A third hurricane, Jose, waits offshore and the storm season is far from done.
So why isn’t the public heeding scientists and demanding climate action by politicians that could help deal with these destructive extremes? You can point fingers at the influence of fossil fuel companies, at misinformation from climate deniers and at political obstructionism, notably from a fragmented Republican party. But a much deeper force is also at work: the way our brains function.
Humans aren’t well wired to act on complex statistical risks. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future. Many of us do that to the extreme — what behavioral scientists call hyperbolic discounting — which makes it particularly hard to grapple with something like climate change, where the biggest dangers are yet to come.
Humans aren’t wired to act on complex statistical risks very well. We care a lot more about the tangible present than the distant future.
Our mental space is limited and we aren’t primed to focus on abstruse topics. Except for a small fraction that are highly motivated, most voters know little about the ins and outs of climate change, or the policy options relating to it. Instead, voters’ opinions about such things derive from heuristics such as political party affiliation and basic ideology.
It isn’t surprising, then, that most people don’t process information about extreme events the way scientists do. And they don’t do a good job of holding politicians accountable when the effects of political inaction are far removed from the policy failures that cause them.
The arrival of extreme events — hurricanes, wildfires, drought and torrential deluges — is not proof to many people that scientists are right and that a complete rethinking of climate policy is overdue. Instead, voters see these shocks more as evidence that things are out of whack. Change is needed, and voters deliver that verdict not by reevaluating policy but by casting politicians out of office.
Political scientists call such decision-making retrospective voting, and it too is rooted in how the brain deals with complex topics. It seems less than rational, but for busy voters, focusing on immediate, visible results and situations is a practical way to assess politicians, even if those results and situations are many steps removed from elected leaders’ actual responsibilities.
When it comes to climate change, this sort of brain-driven behavior tends to create churn in political leadership rather than the continuity needed for long-term planning. It ejects whoever happens to be in office, rather than the real culprits. It doesn’t help that when politicians know they are at risk of losing office due to disasters, they may pursue quick payoffs, neglecting longer-term policies like those needed for emissions mitigation and climate adaptation.
California’s climate actions prove there can be exceptions to these rules. But what matters for global warming is ultimately what happens across the nation and the planet. Overall, the politics of controlling emissions, especially given the time horizons we face, will continue to bring out the worst in how we make important policy decisions.
Quick, deep cuts in emissions would impose high costs on existing well-organized interest groups for benefits that will be diffused across all nations and that will accrue mainly in the distant future. Failing at emissions control, we will have to grapple with the politics of adaptation — abandoning vulnerable regions and subsidizing the construction of various forms of protection, like sea walls to deal with worsening storm surges.
Voters consistently report being worried about climate change. But asked to rank their priorities, they rarely put climate policy high on the list. Nor does the public indicate that it is willing to spend what is needed to address the problem. What voters know is mixed, muddled and sparse.
This grim analysis explains why political systems will always be playing catch-up. Even with the conspicuous signals of regular extreme events, public support for the policies needed to stop global warming will be fleeting. But that realization can also inspire new policy strategies that are better wired for our political brains.
First, investments in technology can help immensely because they lower the cost of reducing emissions, making change appear less costly and easier to adopt. New energy technologies also create new interest groups that can help keep policy makers focused on controlling emissions when voters’ minds drift.
Second, we’re likely to do better with policies that generate immediate and tangible benefits. A good example is efforts to control soot — a potent warming pollutant and also a central ingredient in noxious local air pollution. Even countries and societies that care little about global goals find it in their self-interest to protect the air their citizens breathe.
Third, our political institutions can help people focus on the long view by surveying climate impacts on a regular basis, so that each extreme storm is less a novel event and more a part of a pattern that needs sustained policy attention. One model is California’s program of localized climate assessments that inform decisions about land-use planning and development. Another is the Obama administration’s regular, nationwide assessments, which are at risk of termination under President Trump.
Our brains are unfortunately not wired to tackle problems like climate change. With some help we can build policies that enable us to do better. What the storms in the Gulf and Atlantic are reminding the public — for now, if not for long— is that the consequences of failure are big.

*David G. Victor is a professor at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy & Strategy and codirector of the Initiative on Energy and Climate at the Brookings Institution.
*Nick Obradovich is a research scientist at MIT’s Media Laboratory.
*Dillon J. Amaya is a PhD student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Links

The Window Is Closing to Avoid Dangerous Global Warming

Scientific AmericanJean Chemnick (ClimateWire)

There's a 50 percent chance that temperatures will rise 4 degrees Celsius under a business-as-usual scenario
Credit: David McNew Getty Images
Deadly climate change could threaten most of the world's human population by the end of this century without efforts well beyond those captured in the Paris Agreement.
That's the finding of a pair of related reports released yesterday by an international group of climate science and policy luminaries who warned that the window is closing to avert dangerous warming. They say carbon dioxide might have to be removed from the atmosphere.
Scientists Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanathan found in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that there already exists a 1 in 20 chance that the 2.2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere could cause an existential warming threat. This "fat tail" scenario would mean the world experiences "existential/unknown" warming by 2100 — defined in the report as more than 5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Temperatures haven't been that high since the Miocene warming period. That low-probability but very extreme scenario could expose most of the world's people to deadly heat stress, with 2.5 billion facing viruses linked to warming and 20 percent of the world's species becoming extinct.
"To put in perspective, how many of us would choose to buckle our grandchildren to an airplane seat if we knew there was as much as a 1 in 20 chance of the plane crashing?" said Ramanathan in a statement. "With climate change that can pose existential threats, we have already put them in that plane."
The report also found a 50 percent chance that temperatures would rise to 4 C under a business-as-usual scenario, a less extreme but still highly dangerous level. The long-term goal of the Paris accord was to maintain warming well below 2 C.
To avoid this fate, Xu and Ramanathan recommend that nations pull three mitigation "levers" in the very near future. The world must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, they write, with greenhouse gas emissions peaking by 2020 — a rate that is not in line with the voluntary commitments made by countries in Paris. For contrast, the United States under President Obama pledged to cut emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 — a promise that the Trump administration has said it will cancel.
The researchers say that countries must also tackle short-lived climate pollutants like hydrofluorocarbons that accelerate warming greatly in the near term, and take some of the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere out. If the turnaround is sufficiently swift on CO2 and other greenhouse gas reductions, fewer carbon sinks will be needed, they write. But the more carbon that is emitted, the more carbon extraction will be needed in the form of reforestation, sequestration and technologies.
Xu and Ramanathan handed their findings off to a cadre of 33 policy and science experts, who compiled a related report considering some of the steps countries could take to contain warming. These ranged from greater reliance on subnational government action to a sharp pivot to wind and solar energy and electric cars.
"We are quickly running out of time to prevent hugely dangerous, expensive, and perhaps unmanageable climate change," wrote the report's authors, who include former U.N. Environment Programme chief Achim Steiner and Mexican chemist Mario Molina, who won the Nobel Prize for his role in discovering the threat that chlorofluorocarbon gases pose to the Earth's ozone layer.
Paul Bledsoe, a co-author of the policy report, described the findings as "pretty disturbing."
"These studies are a wake-up call ahead of U.N. Climate Week — we must not only zero out CO2 emissions by 2050, but also rapidly limit superpollutants like HFCs and methane, and even undertake atmospheric carbon removal," said Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser.

Links

'Weird Winter': Climate Change Behind Australia's Record Hot And Dry Weather

Fairfax

Australia had its hottest winter on record with temperatures up by two degrees celsius on average and it is related to worsening climate change, according to a leading scientific group.
Winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more often and becoming more intense, a report by not-for-profit group the Climate Council found.
Australia has posted a record warm winter - even if it didn't always feel that way. Photo: Nick Moir
In addition to the warmth, the nation experienced its second driest June on record and the driest winter since 2002, the Hot & Dry: Australia's Weird Winter report found.
Ecologist Professor Lesley Hughes said there were more than 260 heat and low rainfall records set throughout the season.
"Without any meaningful action to tackle climate change, we will continue to see many more hot winters, just like this, as global temperatures rise," Ms Hughes said.
"We must take meaningful action to strongly reduce Australia's emissions from fossil fuels.
"The current situation in which the government continues to not only delay real action to reduce emissions, but is actively supporting further development of coal-fired power is simply nonsensical."
The unseasonable weather has led to an earlier start to the bushfire season in many parts of Australia, especially Victoria and other southern states, she said.
Professor Hughes urged the federal government to get on with tackling climate change.
"The solution remains the same - clean, efficient and affordable renewable energy and storage technology."
Australia's average winter temperatures have increased by about one degree celsius since 1910, driven by climate change as a direct result of burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas, the council said.
The council was formed by Australia's biggest crowd-funding campaign after the Tony Abbott government abolished the Climate Commission in 2013.

Climate CouncilLesley Hughes

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Climate Change made Australia’s warmest winter on record an astounding 60 times more likely, our new report highlights.
The “Hot & Dry: Australia’s Weird Winter,” report shows the nation experienced its warmest winter on record (for average maximum temperatures), while more than 260 heat and low rainfall records were also broken throughout the season.
Climate Councillor and ecologist, Professor Lesley Hughes said Australia’s hottest winter in history was related to worsening climate change.
“Without any meaningful action to tackle climate change, we will continue to see many more hot winters, just like this, as global temperatures rise,” she said.

“We must take meaningful action to strongly reduce Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels."

Key findings include:
  • Australia had its warmest winter on record, in terms of average maximum temperatures, reaching nearly 2ºC above average.
  • More than 260 heat and low rainfall records were broken during the winter months.
  • The nation experienced its second driest June on record and the driest winter since 2002.
  • The exceptionally warm and dry winter was made 60 times more likely by climate change.
  • Australia’s average winter temperatures have increased by around 1ºC since 1910, driven by climate change, as a direct result of burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas.
  • Winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more often and becoming more intense.

Links

19/09/2017

Global Ocean Circulation Appears To Be Collapsing Due To A Warming Planet

ForbesTrevor Nace

Global ocean circulation appears to be slowing. NASA
Scientists have long known about the anomalous "warming hole" in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth's oceans. This cool zone in the North Atlantic Ocean appears to be associated with a slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), one of the key drivers in global ocean circulation.
A recent study published in Nature outlines research by a team of Yale University and University of Southhampton scientists. The team found evidence that Arctic ice loss is potentially negatively impacting the planet's largest ocean circulation system. While scientists do have some analogs as to how this may impact the world, we will be largely in uncharted territory.
AMOC is one of the largest current systems in the Atlantic Ocean and the world. Generally speaking, it transports warm and salty water northward from the tropics to South and East of Greenland. This warm water cools to ambient water temperature then sinks as it is saltier and thus denser than the relatively more fresh surrounding water. The dense mass of water sinks to the base of the North Atlantic Ocean and is pushed south along the abyss of the Atlantic Ocean.
Schematic of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Wikipedia
This process whereby water is transported into the Northern Atlantic Ocean acts to distribute ocean water globally. What's more important, and the basis for concern of many scientists is this mechanism is one of the most efficient ways Earth transports heat from the tropics to the northern latitudes. The warm water transported from the tropics to the North Atlantic releases heat to the atmosphere, playing a key role in warming of western Europe. You likely have heard of one of the more popular components of the AMOC, the Gulf Stream which brings warm tropical water to the western coasts of Europe.
Evidence is growing that the comparatively cold zone within the Northern Atlantic could be due to a slowdown of this global ocean water circulation. Hence, a slowdown in the planet's ability to transfer heat from the tropics to the northern latitudes. The cold zone could be due to melting of ice in the Arctic and Greenland. This would cause a cold fresh water cap over the North Atlantic, inhibiting sinking of salty tropical waters. This would in effect slow down the global circulation and hinder the transport of warm tropical waters north.
Measured trend in temperature variations from 1900 to 2012. NOAA
Melting of the Arctic sea ice has rapidly increased in the recent decades. Satellite image records indicate that September Arctic sea ice is 30% less today than it was in 1979. This trend of increased sea ice melting during summer months does not appear to be slowing. Hence, indications are that we will see a continued weakening of the global ocean circulation system.
This scenario of a collapse in AMOC and global ocean circulation is the premise for the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." As a disclaimer, the plot line in which much of New England and Western Europe gets plunged into an ice age is significantly over exaggerated and unrealistic on human time scales.
While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative