Consequences of Global Warming 02

If any of you Readers who believe the threat of climate change is real are feeling worried or, worse, fearful about the future for our children and grandchildren, all is neither hopeless nor lost. One of the key conclusions of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report was the high agreement and much evidence that all of the CO₂ stabilization levels that were assessed can be achieved through application of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades. Although that conclusion assumes appropriate and effective governmental incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment, and diffusion, we all know what can happen when financial carrots/incentives and tax credits are dangled in front of hungry entrepreneurs.

If we start now, sufficient time will likely be available in which to turn things around in terms of CO₂ production; but only if we start now. Most scientists believe that many adverse climate change effects can be reduced, delayed, or avoided by adoption of targeted mitigation measures. That belief is reinforced by another IPCC conclusion that mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have large positive effects on opportunities to achieve lower CO₂ stabilization levels. Remember, effective mitigation requires a multi-layered response to the threat of climate change: personal and policy/regulatory. But, if our response does not function at all levels, then the mitigation will be less effective. It is critical to realize that no quick fixes are possible. Even after we have adopted the most efficient mitigation available, the global warming issue will be with us for decades and longer. In 2005, James W. Hurrell, Director of the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, made a very significant observation about the time scale of the benefits of mitigation policies for altering climate effects: “it should be recognized that mitigation actions taken now mainly have benefits 50 years and beyond.”

What could push the situation in either direction are concerted citizen actions and pressure on politicians at every level to reduce “greenhouse” gases and other pollutants OR highly focused donations to political campaigns by well-healed energy-related companies and individuals to hold the reduction of GHG to “economically defensible” levels. As of mid-2011, the future is too uncertain to predict and may remain so for a number of years. However, if the anti-science Republican Party and it’s know-nothing leaders win the White House and Congress, all bets are off and my guess is energy conservation and GHG reduction are in the toilet.

SOB’s View Point: Who Owns the Risk?

Obviously, scientists have insufficient information to determine whether climate change will lead to the hottest temperatures in ten million years or to another ice age that extends across Europe and North America. Although time will tell as to which of several climate change scenarios will prevail, none of us, no matter what we believe now, will be around to say, “I told you so,” and so will most of our children.

The point everyone must realize is that science has determined that the world is facing a situation (global warming) that is fraught with risk but is also characterized by enormous uncertainty. The resulting ambiguity makes reaching decisions a difficult process, both for individuals and society, especially decisions that largely affect the future. So, what to do? I strongly advocate focusing on who takes ownership of the risk. Here’s how it works. Read the following statements carefully because they are complex.

a.      If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory turns out to be false and we wrongly controlled GHG by over-regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals will likely suffer adverse effects until the regulations are rescinded.

Conclusion: We are producing the GHG and own the risk.

b.      If AGW turns out to be false and we took no actions to control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, society and individuals will continue to experience the existing status quo with respect to climate.

Conclusion: We are producing GHG but push a negligible risk into the future.

c.      If AGW turns out to be true and we correctly controlled GHG through appropriate industry regulation and curtailing certain types of economic development, society and individuals may suffer adverse effects in the short-term but the mid- to long-term climate change problems will be much less severe and shorter in duration, as will negative socioeconomic effects.

Conclusion: We are producing the GHG and own the risk.

d.      If AGW turns out to be true and we failed to control GHG by regulating industry and economic development, climate change will continue and accelerate over time, causing future civil society and individuals to suffer a wide range of progressively severe negative effects that over the mid- to long-term will most likely become catastrophic.

                 Conclusion: We are producing the GHG but through lack of action push an enormous risk onto future generations.

Although I am neither a moral philosopher nor an ethicist, it seems clear that dumping the risk of progressively severe climate change effects onto generations that have not caused the problems would be repugnant and reprehensible. Therefore, whatever we do to avert the adverse effects of global warming must arise from our owning the risk and acting in a responsible manner.

Like a number people who have studied the potential effects of global climate change for several decades, I am more than a little conflicted, holding what are essentially opposing ideas simultaneously. On the one hand, I think that the world has or will have access to techniques that are capable of reducing GHG and mitigating their adverse effects. Once financial incentives have been put into play, entrepreneurs all over the world will spring into action and create viable solutions to many, if not most, of the problems caused by emitting high levels of GHG. And, after unrelenting pressure from individuals and NGOs, governments will enact and enforce policies/regulations that are intended to reduce GHG to sustainable levels.

On the other hand, the effects of inertia on achieving control over GHG emissions cannot be discounted. In the past decade, it has become increasingly clear that the world lacks the political will to cut global emissions. China’s growing GHG emissions are on pace to double those of the United States in a decade, and that country shows little interest either in slowing down its pace of growth or adopting and enforcing environmentally sustainable practices at any level. Plus, India’s growth rate puts its GHG emissions only slightly behind those of China. Neither Brazil nor Indonesia seem to have any desire to control the senseless destruction of their tropical forests, an incredibly deleterious practice that not only increases GHG emissions but also reduces the global oxygen supply. The United States has refused to cap its emissions or enact sustainable GHG regulations and much of Europe has failed to satisfy even the modest terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 landmark treaty on limiting GHG.

In addition, several other types of inertia must be taken into account. First, the level of disbelief in the adverse effects of global warming by individuals and leaders throughout the world has to be considered. In the US alone, millions of uninformed people as well as thousands of high-level corporate executives regard AGW as a hoax; changing their minds and corporate practices is a daunting challenge likely to take decades to achieve. Second, consider the inertia set in place by the many coal-fired power plants in the world, which will go on spewing GHG into the atmosphere for between 35 to 50 years, no matter what other mitigating measures are enacted. Finally, you cannot forget the inertia of changing from the relatively fuel-inefficient motor vehicles of today to a more highly efficient technology of the future, especially here in the U.S. if more anti-science Republicans are elected to national office.

Overall, given the numerous significant constraints that cripple opportunities to effect beneficial change, I simply do not believe that global, national, or individual efforts to control, reduce, or mitigate GHG emissions will be successful over any period, from short- to long-term. From my perspective, by the time the world either recognizes the dangers or can enact effective measures to control GHG emissions, too many tipping points will have been triggered and systemic and irreversible environmental collapse will be underway.

Therefore, I believe that personal choices and sacrifices in terms of attempting to prevent significant climate change, no matter how laudable or seemingly sustainable, will prove singularly unsuccessful. I fully recognize that that position contains more than a small element of self-fulfilling prophesy. To counter that element, I remain deeply committed to working as hard as I can to achieve meaningful policies to reduce GHG in the atmosphere. And I try to live as energy-conscious a life as possible.

As an aside, I am very happy that I am too old to see what I feel in my heart will be the inevitable, adverse, and catastrophic consequences of the blindly foolish choices we are making today.

Consequences of Global Warming 01

Many of the long-term consequences of global warming have already begun and are in front of our eyes. The real world examples listed below illustrate that fact. Melting Arctic sea ice.[1] Melting ice shelves in Antarctica. Melting glaciers in Greenland, Glacier National Park, on Mt. Kilimanjaro, the Alps, Nepal/Tibet, and throughout South America. Increased icequakes in ice caps and ice sheets around the world indicating accelerated movement. Poleward migration of climate belts and flora and fauna. Gradual decline or disappearance of numerous species including polar bears, Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, Adele penguins, polar sea birds, and numerous frogs, toads, and lizards. Melting of Siberian permafrost and previously frozen peat bogs and subsequent release of both CO₂ and methane. The most intensive infestation of spruce bark beetle in Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula, affecting approximately 1.1 million acres and killing tens of millions of mature spruce trees. And the infestation of millions of acres of Canadian forests by mountain pine beetles in what the Canadian Forest Service calls the largest known insect infestation in North American history. All of those effects are happening today and will continue into the foreseeable future as other yet undetected effects will be found.

But what if the world could get its act together and change the existing conditions where CO₂ and other heat-absorbing atmospheric gases are injected into the air seemingly without thought of consequence? Would there be sufficient time to get those emissions in control and avoid the worst potential consequences? The answer is a tentative affirmative, not because the technologies are unavailable but because of the lack of political will, especially in the U.S. James E. Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor (PhD Physics) of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, believes that we have ten years (starting from 2005-2006) to enact national and international policies and procedures to control those harmful emissions. He doesn’t mean we have ten years to think about doing something but ten years of focused action before climate change starts turning ugly. As Hansen wrote in an essay on November 28, 2007:

Ignorance is no excuse for us. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming, its causes, and many of its implications. Today’s generations will be accountable, and how tall we stand remains to be determined. There is still time, but just barely.[2]

So, given the political malaise that currently grips Washington, DC, what various scenarios should be considered in terms of climate change? First, based on realpolitik, we have to look at consequences of continuing the status quo into the mid-term future, meaning that harmful emissions of energy-absorbing atmospheric gases will continue to increase at present rates. Second, we should examine the effects of a realistic contra-global warming alternative, one in which a combination of governmental policy and regulatory changes, widespread energy conservation, remediation, and new technologies will cause emissions of CO₂, methane, ozone and industrial particulates (especially black soot) to level off this decade, slowly decline for two decades, and by mid-century decrease rapidly.[3]

According to most atmospheric scientists, continuation of the status quo will result in doubling the current rate of poleward movement of climatic isotherms (temperature lines used to mark the boundaries of climate types) to about 70 miles per decade. Several centuries of that movement will result in the extinction of between 40 and 60 percent of the species on Earth and will transform the Great Plains, Southeast, Midwest, and perhaps the Mid-Atlantic states into arid and semi-arid regions, eviscerating the heart and soul of agricultural America. The status quo scenario also results in an increase of about four to six degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during the 21st Century, which may cause the disintegration of polar ice sheets since the temperature rise at the poles would be in the range of about ten to twelve degrees higher than at present, translating into an eventual rise in sea level that may be as high as 80 feet.[4] \

That rise would inundate every coastal city in the world and every low-lying island, displacing perhaps a billion people and drastically altering the socioeconomic web of modern civilization. Under that scenario, it is conceivable that by around 2200 sea levels will have risen as high as 20 feet. And as peak summer temperatures rise, the resulting heat waves in individual countries could push the annual number of heat-related illnesses and deaths to the hundreds of thousands, especially in light of the record heat wave that devastated Europe in August 2003, killing an estimated 35,000 people. Note that that number may actually be lower than the grim reality since several European governments were very reluctant to reveal publicly systemic failures in their national healthcare delivery programs.

Implementation of the contra-global warming alternative scenario is anticipated to yield a global average increase of less than two degrees Fahrenheit during the same 50-year period and would result in a significant rise in the sea level, probably on the order of 14 to 17 inches by 2100 or even slightly higher. But the slower rate of temperature increase would allow time to develop and put in place policies, regulations, strategies, new technologies, and mitigation measures that would enable communities to adapt to the rise in temperature and sea level. Despite the lower rate of increase of harmful atmospheric gases, it is estimated that this alternative scenario will lead to the eventual extinction of 20 percent of species alive today and the degradation of significant land and water habitats.

But the simple truth is that even the worst case global warming will not radically affect the Earth and most lifeforms. Of course, many species would perish under the status quo scenario. But the mass extinctions that happened many times in the geological past were followed by large-scale biological radiations, such as the radiation that was responsible for the rapid rise of mammals. Therefore, a short-term climate change (in the geological sense) is not likely to spell doom for the Earth. Actually, a hotter, more humid planet would be ideal for most life and would favor quite a few species. Biological organisms are fundamentally much more resilient than humans and more adaptive to widespread environmental change than the modern civilization we have created, with such complex socioeconomic entities as cities, states, as well as local, regional, national, and international market systems. Keep in mind that even polar bears managed to survive a significant climate change that occurred about 120,000 years ago that increased the Earth’s average temperature by several degrees over what is found at present. So, although the news is not uniformly bad, the adverse effects of global warming on people and the institutions and organizations we have created will be highly significant and probably unavoidable and may prove catastrophic, especially for the many millions of people who live in coastal or island environments or those who depend on glaciers as sources of potable and agricultural water.

The big question concerns which of those scenarios will play out. Although at this point no one knows, several indicators may be identified. First, awareness of the threats of global warming characterizes about half of the general public, though that doesn’t mean that appropriate actions are close at hand. Second, well-known and wealthy individuals and foundations are using their clout and money to make a difference in the movement to control the warming trend.

On the other hand, large coal-fired electrical generating plants using current technology are being planned and permitted in several states; those plants do not employ the latest and most efficient anti-pollution designs and will therefore generate more pollution over their projected 30-year lifespans than if the cleaner and more advanced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle coal technology (IGCC) had been used. Even today, the State of Texas, with its large supply of current technology coal-fired power plants, leads all U.S. states in the production of “greenhouse” gases and has no plans to reduce its emissions. And hydrocarbon companies are filling the airwaves with misinformation and even outright fabrications about hydrocarbon resources, gas fracking technology, and mining Canadian and Western U.S. tar sands and shale oil deposits. Plus, the Tea Party activists and nearly every Republican presidential candidate are global warming deniers. So, the current conditions are characterized by indicators that point in opposite directions, meaning that the situation is balancing on a fine knife edge.

---

[1] The largest summer retreat of Arctic sea ice ever measured was in 2007 with 2008, 2009, and 2010 having recorded the second, fourth, and third lowest levels.

[2] James Hansen: "Averting Our Eyes,” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/28/215831/00; the essay can and also be found at: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/

[3] These scenarios were first developed and presented by James Hansen in New York Review of Books; Volume 53, Number 12, July 13, 2006.

[4] Three million years ago, when global temperatures were slightly greater than five degrees higher than they are today, sea level was about 80 feet higher than at present. However, it is likely that it would take several centuries for that eventual rise to be completed.