Blogs

Climate Change Blog 17 - Facts on the Ground; New IPCC Report; Half a Degree of Warming; Washington DC

By Carl Howard posted 10-18-2018 09:25 AM

  

Facts on the Ground:

Hurricane Michael, a Category 4 storm, left much of the Florida Panhandle in ruins. At least 19 are dead, over one million homes and businesses were without power, 4 hospitals were closed, 300 patients from storm-damaged hospitals in Panama City were evacuated, and 11 nursing facilities were closed in Florida and one in Georgia.

It is one of the most powerful storms ever to hit the continental United States leaving a trail of destruction across 200 miles that splintered houses, peeled off roofs and stirred up a terrifying surge of seawater that submerged entire neighborhoods and sent boats careening down city streets. Winds topped 155 miles per hour. People huddled, terrified, in stairwells, basements and bathrooms, often in the dark, listening to the howling wind and pelting rain not knowing if their shelter would collapse on them.

When powerful storms hit, no one’s safety is assured. Not the 11-year-old girl in her home who was killed by flying debris while sitting next to her grandmother, nor the man driving his car near Charlotte, NC who was killed by a falling tree.

“Hurricane Michael is the worst storm that the Florida Panhandle has ever seen,” said Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, where 375,000 people were ordered evacuated from the western part of the state.

Emergency declarations were in effect for 322 counties across five Southern states. Warnings were issued as far west as Alabama’s border with Mississippi, and the coasts of Georgia and the Carolinas. The National Guard activated 3,500 troops, and 1.5 million meals were ready to be distributed. One million gallons of water were also prepared.

The storm was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the continental US since Hurricane Irma last year. That storm, which struck a different part of Florida, caused an estimated $50 billion in damage and was cited in 92 deaths.

The storm crossed Georgia and parts of the Carolinas that were deluged when Hurricane Florence, a Category 1 storm, struck last month. This is an instance of an area being struck again while still recovering from the prior blow, a predicted occurrence that likely will become common in many locales globally.

At least $81 billion in taxpayer money has been spent on recovery projects since 1992, often just replacing what was lost with no regard for the realities of climate change. (More on that, and FEMA, in Blog 18.)

Less known recent events included a powerful cyclone in eastern India cutting off electricity, uprooting trees, crumbling mud houses and killing at least 18 people. The storm, Cyclone Titli, came off the Bay of Bengal before hitting the coast with wind speeds near 95 mph. Before the storm made landfall, the state governments evacuated several hundred thousand people, placing them in more than 1,000 shelters. By the time Cyclone Titli touched down, half a million-people had lost electricity.

And Majorca suffered a major storm that killed at least 12 people after heavy rain and flash floods hit the Spanish island. Six of the victims were Spanish, with two British, two German and one Dutch citizen also among the victims (the 12th victim remains unidentified). A rise in the death toll remains a possibility.

 

New IPCC REPORT:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C” with a clear message (again): that humanity must utterly transform its energy systems in the next decade or risk ecological and social disaster.

The panel was created in 1988 and synthesizes the findings of leading climate scientists. It received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its straight-forward periodic reports summarizing what is known about climate change. Its latest report is an urgent warning of the incredible dangers posed by climate change. One UN official and co-chairman of the panel, Jim Skea, described it as “a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen.” The IPCC reports are written for the lay-man, for the “policy-maker” in governments around the world. And while the world community regularly meets and talks about the imminent dangers of climate change, this report makes clear that not nearly enough is being done.

The report was written by 91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies and came about at the request of several small island nations that took part in the Paris talks and fear for their future due to sea level rise. The Paris accord includes pledges from 195 countries to limit increases in global warming to 3.6F degrees (2C degrees) above preindustrial levels. But the small island nations asked the panel to study a lower threshold, 2.7F degrees (1.5C degrees). The panel’s report concluded that the stricter threshold should become the new target albeit merely aspirational. But higher, more likely thresholds, pose catastrophic consequences: mass die-offs of coral reefs, widespread drought, famine, wildfires, powerful storms, potential conflict over land, food and fresh water and millions of environmental refugees. Everything we are seeing now, but much worse.

Despite all the prior IPCC reports and warnings (see Blog #1), global emissions increased 1.5% in 2017 and likely increased further in 2018. The panel said a mammoth global effort is needed immediately and through the century to decarbonize energy systems. The next 10 years are crucial. To prevent 2.7F degrees of warming, the report said, greenhouse pollution must be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100% by 2050. It also found that, by 2050, use of coal as an electricity source would have to drop from nearly 40% today to between 1 and 7%. Renewable energy such as wind and solar, which generate about 20% of the electricity today, must increase to about 67%.

We can do this. But it will take concerted efforts by voters to push for real change in political leadership and legislation, and personal change as well. It will take enormous public and private investment and technological progress, maybe a breakthrough or two (we need to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than trees can do alone). Electric cars must replace gas-powered cars. The public, especially the US, must become more actively engaged, via home insulation, installation of smart thermostats, use of public transportation, more efficient appliances and boilers, and change in diet (livestock account for about 14.5% of GHG emissions globally). This is not a problem for the next generation. Climate change is here and it must be dealt with now. Climate change was not a topic in the last presidential or vice-presidential debates. It must be the topic. And there must be legislation such as in Washington State where Gov. Jay Inslee seeks voter approval of a carbon tax. It would be the first of its kind, in any state, and could serve as an inspiration for others.

The UN Report urges such an approach. Putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions is crucial if we are to get global warming under control. This Report follows the awarding of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science to the American economists William Nordhaus and Paul Romer for their work on climate change — specifically, the idea that putting a price on carbon can drive down emissions. Professor Nordhaus stated that “the most efficient remedy for the problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions would be a global scheme of carbon taxes that are uniformly imposed on all countries.” In the 1970s, Professor Nordhaus argued that companies that burn fossil fuels should be taxed at a rate that reflected the harms they were imposing on the rest of the world.

More than 40 governments around the world, including the European Union and California, have now put a price on carbon, either through direct taxes on fossil fuels or through cap-and-trade programs. But it has been politically difficult to set a price high enough to spur significant reductions in carbon emissions.

Economists have long been enthusiastic about carbon pricing because of the policy’s efficiency. Give companies a financial incentive to reduce their fossil-fuel use, and they will find creative and cost-effective ways to do so without the need for unpopular government regulations.

In 2012, the Australian government enacted a cap-and-trade program that effectively set a price on carbon of $23 per ton. Emissions fell nationwide under the program. But heavy political backlash from industry groups and voters aided the rise of the more conservative Liberal Party in 2013 which repealed the program.

A recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the average carbon price across 42 major economies was around $8 per ton in 2018, far below the level most experts say is necessary to address climate change. Those low prices may reflect political constraints on pricing carbon directly.

The United Nations report estimated that a more effective carbon price would be $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution by 2030 to reach the goal of 1.5C degrees (2.7F degrees) of global warming.

Carbon pricing has shown signs of progress in parts of the world. Portugal instituted a carbon tax in 2015, and Chile followed suit in 2017. China has a carbon-trading program in several of its provinces. California recently expanded its cap-and-trade program to cover 85% of its statewide emissions. This fall, voters in Washington State will decide whether to enact a statewide carbon tax.

Whether governments rely on carbon pricing, direct subsidies for clean energy or other policies, nations will have to do far more than they are currently doing for the world to avoid drastic climate change.

In an interview with the Nobel committee, Dr. Nordhaus said he was “concerned about the fact that we’re doing so little.”  “The policies are lagging very, very far — miles, miles, miles — behind the science and what needs to be done.”

 

Half a Degree of Warming:

The Earth has already warmed 1C degree (1.8F degrees) since the 19th century. The above-noted UN Report analyzed the consequences of a 1.5 or 2C degrees warming.

Half a degree may not sound like much. But as the report details, even that much warming could expose tens of millions more people worldwide to life-threatening heat waves, water shortages and coastal flooding. Half a degree may mean the difference between a world with coral reefs and Arctic summer sea ice and a world without them.

At 1.5C increase, Sea ice will remain during most summers. At 2C, Ice-free summers are 10 times more likely. An additional half-degree of warming could mean greater habitat losses for polar bears, whales, seals and sea birds. But warming temperatures could benefit Arctic fisheries.

At 1.5C, about 14% of the world population would be exposed to severe heat waves at least once every five years. At 2C, about 37% of the world population would be so exposed. The tropics likely would experience the biggest increase in the number of “highly unusual” hot days.

At 1.5C, over 350 million people worldwide would be subject to water scarcity in urban settings. At 2C, over 411 million people would likely be so affected. The Mediterranean region is expected to see “particularly strong increases in dryness” in a 2°C world.

At 1.5C, many species would lose more than half of their current ranges, including 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates. At 2C, 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates may be so affected.

At 1.5C, 31 to 69 million people worldwide could be exposed to flooding from sea level rise in 2100 (without adaptation). At 2C, 32 to 80 million people could be so affected. Small island nations may well be gone.

An extra 580,000 to 1 million square miles of permafrost would thaw at 2°C compared to 1.5°C, which would release immense amounts of Methane.

Global crop yields are expected to be lower under 2°C of warming compared to 1.5°C, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America.

And 1.5C degrees is a best-case scenario. Without an extremely rapid, and perhaps unrealistic, global push to zero out fossil fuel emissions and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, 2C degrees (3.6F degrees) or higher this century looks likely. All the national pledges made in Paris to curb emissions, if achieved (which is unlikely) puts the world on track to warm around 3C degrees or more.

Each time the Earth heats up an extra half-degree, the effects aren’t uniform across the planet. Some regions, such as the Arctic, will heat up two to three times faster. The Mediterranean and Middle East regions could see a 9% drop in water availability at 1.5C of warming and a 17% drop at 2C degrees.

The report also highlights the possibility that even modest amounts of warming may push both human societies and natural ecosystems past certain thresholds where sudden and calamitous changes can occur.

Coral reefs provide food and coastal protection for half a billion people worldwide. Before the 1970s, it was rare for ocean temperatures to get so warm that swaths of corals would bleach and die. But as global average temperatures have risen half a degree in that span, these bleaching events have become a regular phenomenon. With an additional half-degree of warming above today’s levels, tropical coral reefs will face “very frequent mass mortalities.” But at 2C degrees of total warming, coral reefs are in danger of vanishing entirely.

It is less certain when other long-feared tipping points will occur, such as the irreversible disintegration of the vast ice sheets on top of Greenland or West Antarctica. The report warns that these ice sheets could potentially start to destabilize with 1.5 to 2C degrees of warming, committing the world to many more feet of sea level rise for centuries to come.

The report also warns that vulnerable areas, like many African countries and small island nations, may struggle to cope with multiple impacts. Crop failures, heat waves and the expansion of malaria-carrying mosquitoes compound when they occur together.

To stay below 2C degrees virtually all the coal plants and gasoline-burning vehicles on the planet would need to be quickly replaced with zero-carbon alternatives. This means no home, business, or industry heated by gas or oil; no vehicles powered by diesel or gasoline; all coal and gas power plants shuttered; the petrochemical industry converted wholesale to green chemistry; and heavy industry like steel and aluminum production either using carbon-free energy sources or employing (future) technology to capture CO2 emissions and permanently store it.

In addition, depending on how fast emissions are cut, between 0.4 and 2.7 million square miles (1-7 million square kilometers) of land may have to be converted to growing bioenergy crops and up to 3.86 million square miles (10 million square kilometers) of forests added by 2050. And still that won’t be enough, the report warns. Every pound of CO2 emitted in the last hundred years will continue to trap heat in the atmosphere for hundreds of years to come. By 2045 or 2050 there will still be too much CO2 in the atmosphere. More forests or some form of direct capture that takes CO2 out of the atmosphere will be essential to stabilize global temperatures at 2.7F degrees (1.5C degrees), the report says.

Forests must play a much bigger role in cutting emissions. Forests provide an important service to humanity currently removing about 25% of our CO2. Reforestation and improving forest management together could remove CO2 from the atmosphere amounting to 18% of the reductions needed by 2030. Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Australia, the U.S., Russia, and the European Union could also substantially increase their forests economically and without impacting food production—while potentially removing billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. Protecting and increasing tropical forests is especially important since they cool the air and are key in creating regional rainfall for growing food.

Existing forests must be protected to avoid dangerous climate change. The world’s forests contain more carbon than exploitable oil, gas, and coal deposits. Our planet’s future climate is inextricably tied to the future of its forests.

The path forward requires that we move beyond dirty fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal to an economy powered by 100% clean, renewable energy. The clean energy solutions that cut the carbon pollution fueling the climate crisis are available and affordable right now. Visionary leaders and millions of people are organizing to ensure more than half of the nation’s coal plants are retired or retiring, dangerous pipelines are stopped, electric vehicles are deployed, the build-out of dirty gas infrastructure is halted, and more American cities commit to 100% clean energy.

Getting the planet’s warming under even a modicum of control requires a fast-moving transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before.

Failing to cap global warming dramatically increases risks to human civilization and the ecosystems that sustain life on Earth.

Despite these projections, some groups closely watching the process say the final version of the report—which had to be approved by all 195 IPCC member nations—doesn't do enough to warn world leaders about the grim consequences of reaching potential climate tipping points that could trigger conflicts over resources and mass migration.

There's also a growing risk that warming will disrupt key ocean circulations, including currents that keep Europe mild despite its relatively high latitude. That could have dramatic consequences, including a Scandinavian-like climate for temperate parts of Western Europe.

Numbers from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies provide a solid foundation for those concerns: weather-related events displaced 23.5 million people in 2016.

University of Florida sea level rise expert Andrea Dutton said she hopes the new report will help clarify global warming threats for the public, especially the risk of sea level rise in coastal areas.

"What sounds like small increments in temperature can have devastating effects in terms of climate impacts on growing human populations," she said. "This report is not about whether the planet can withstand another half-degree increase in temperature. It is about understanding whether we can withstand it. Small temperature changes can have far-reaching impacts on our ability to survive on this planet."

In Indonesia, the rising water and erosion has inundated poor coastal communities, like one on Java, where the residents can't afford to move. Sea level rise is already causing frequent flooding and contaminating fresh water supplies on low-lying islands. Satellite measurements from recent years show sea level rising faster than expected, and new data from ancient ice layers, tree rings and other sources suggest the polar ice sheets are more vulnerable to extensive melting at 1.5°C warming than previously believed.

"So, it is all doom and gloom? No, because every increment of progress we can make to keep the temperature from climbing even higher will make a difference," Dutton said. "The steps that need to be taken to abate the worst outcomes require leadership at every level. My hope is that this report will encourage and empower that leadership."

Humanity likely will have to remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere later this century. If the average global temperature exceeds 1.5°C warming by just 0.2 degrees, CO2 removal would have to be deployed at a scale "that might not be achievable given considerable implementation challenges," the report says.

The IPCC report will be key to discussions in Katowice, Poland, in December, when the world meets for the annual UN climate talks to try to finalize the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement.

Christopher Weber, global lead scientist for climate and energy for the World Wildlife Fund, said negotiators in Poland should focus on the underlying science.

"This is not a political negotiation, it's a science report. We're already seeing impacts like super storms, wildfires and heat waves from 1C degree of warming," he said. "This report underscores that many of the impacts we thought we would see at 2C degrees we will see sooner, and they may be unstoppable above that."

Avoiding the most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that such damage would cost $54 trillion at 2.7F degrees of warming and $69 trillion at 3.6F degrees of warming. The report emphasizes the potential role of a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. “A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation.”

Under the Obama administration, government economists estimated that an appropriate price on carbon would be in the range of $50 per ton. Under the Trump administration, that figure was lowered to about $7 per ton.

The World Coal Association disputed the conclusion that stopping global warming calls for an end of coal use.

Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group funded by Charles and David Koch, has made a point of campaigning against politicians who support a carbon tax.

“Carbon taxes are political poison because they increase gas prices and electric rates,” said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded Washington research organization, and who led the Trump administration’s transition at the EPA.

The report details the economic damage expected should governments fail to enact policies to reduce emissions. The United States, it said, could lose roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product for every 1.8F degrees of warming.

In addition, it said, the United States along with Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam are home to 50 million people who will be exposed to the effects of increased coastal flooding by 2040, if 2.7F degrees of warming occur.

At 3.6F degrees of warming, the report predicts a “disproportionately rapid evacuation” of people from the tropics. “In some parts of the world, national borders will become irrelevant,” said Aromar Revi, director of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements and an author of the report. “You can set up a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people, but not 10 million.”

The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods and environmental refugees around the world with just 1.8F degrees (1.0C degrees) of global warming. But much of this will get substantially worse with 2.7F degrees of warming, and far worse at 3.6F degrees (2C degrees), according to the Report.

Washington DC:

Despite the controversial policy implications, the United States delegation joined more than 180 countries in accepting the report’s summary for policymakers, while walking a delicate diplomatic line. A State Department statement said that “acceptance of this report by the panel does not imply endorsement by the United States of the specific findings or underlying contents of the report.”  “We reiterate that the United States intends to withdraw from the Paris agreement at the earliest opportunity absent the identification of terms that are better for the American people.” Legally, the US cannot formally withdraw from the pact until 2020 (the day after election day), and the agreement’s terms are voluntary.

Trump, who has mocked the science of human-caused climate change, has vowed to increase the burning of coal. In Brazil, the world’s seventh-largest emitter of greenhouse gas, voters are poised to elect a new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has said he also plans to withdraw from the accord.

Trump cut the American contribution to a global fund that supports climate mitigation and assistance efforts in developing countries by two-thirds, to $1 billion. He has tried to cut government funding of climate-related research — an effort that Congress has so far resisted.

The White House issued no public response to the United Nations report. A deputy press secretary noted that carbon dioxide-related emissions declined 14% in the US from 2005 to 2017 [due to an economic slowdown and an increase in the use of natural gas], while they rose 21% globally during the same period.

Trump encouraged scientists recently when he nominated Kelvin Droegemeier, a well-respected meteorologist who is an expert on extreme weather, to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The post has been vacant since Trump took office.

The Trump administration’s counterterrorism strategy made no mention of climate change as a cause for extremism. The Obama administration regularly cited it in threat assessments because of its effect on migration/refugees and the competition for food and water.

 ----------

Correction: In Blog 16 I referred to Florida’s Gov. as Scott Walker when I meant Rick Scott.

Carl Howard
Co-chair, Global Climate Change Committee
The views expressed above are my own

0 comments
9 views

Permalink