Guest Speaker: Pal Prestrud
Dr. Pal Prestrud has spent much of his career in polar research. A trained ecologist, he has a special interest in the Arctic environment, mammals and birds and has written a number of publications including several on Arctic foxes. He obtained his Ph.D from Oslo University in 1992 with his thesis "Arctic foxes i... Profile
Discussion - November 2009
How must society adapt to rapid climate change to minimise severe upheaval?
29 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 01/11/2009
The question makes two explicit assumptions, both of which are controversial and disputed: that climate change is rapid and that it will result in severe upheaval. Similarly, it is not clear whether the best reaction to global warming should be societal, or individual (or, perhaps, global).
That global warming is happening has now been established. Yet, such a forcing is likely to take centuries to induce any discernible climate change on the planetary level. Moreover: self-interested and well-paying hype aside, we know close to nothing about the hypercomplex set of interactions between various greenhouse gases, the atmosphere, the oceans, the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, human activities, the unforeseen outcomes and by-products of well-meaning regulation and technologies (such as biofuels), solar dynamics, plate tectonics, and thousands of other factors, the vast majority of which are yet to be discovered.
Environmentalism is, therefore, poor science or pseudo-science: it is a pernicious and venal form of faddish hubris. In our current state of ignorance, the more ambitious variants of “solutions” such as geoengineering are far more dangerous than the threats of global warming.
Two things are clear, though: (a) Climate change had happened frequently and repeatedly, long before and ever since humans strode the scene; and (b) Some regions of Earth will greatly benefit economically from global warming. Others, inevitably, will suffer and will have to adapt. None of this sounds like a “severe upheaval”, let alone life-threatening as the more rabid and sensationalist environmentalists will have us believe.
We should take an inventory of what we know and act upon it resolutely (mitigation): emissions from fossil fuel combustion should be tamed, captured, stored, sunk, and sequestered (aerosols to be further studied in conjunction with global dimming and ozone depletion); measures for population control and family planning enhanced; alternative and renewable fuels should be studied and incentives provided to energy-efficient, clean and green technologies; cement manufacture should be tweaked; cap and trade (or tax) schemes implemented on the national, corporate, and individual levels; weather-resistant, energy-conserving, and green construction technologies pioneered; the diets of livestock should be adapted to restrict biological emissions; deforestation and reforestation should be rationalized as should be land use; drought-related indigenous agricultural and water management knowledge and crop varieties should be preserved; flood defenses erected or strengthened; and weather-monitoring capacity should be extended and modernized. These measures make good sense, whatever the urgency of the problem facing us.
But, we should invest the bulk of our scarce resources in research and innovation. We should accept that climate change is inevitable and work out ways of harnessing it to our benefit. We should come up with new agricultural methods and strains; new types of tourism; new irrigation techniques; water desalination, diversion, transport, and allocation schemes; ways of sustaining biological diversity and of helping the human body adapt and cope; and global plans to cope with energy production problems, poverty, and disease triggered by global warming.
For the next few centuries, global warming is inexorable and largely irreversible (as the IPCC essentially admits). To think otherwise is completely delusional. Better to re-imagine our existence on this planet (adaptation). As temperatures rise in certain locales (and drop in others!), new economic activities and routes of commerce would be made possible or rendered feasible; new types of produce and forests will flourish; new technologies will be developed to cater to a novel and growing set of needs.
We would do well to not consider global warming as a crisis, but as a massive change. And even if we insist on regarding it as a cataclysm, as the Chinese saying goes, there are opportunities in every predicament. The initial costs of every transformation and transition in human history have been steep (recall the Industrial Revolution and, more recently, the transition from Communism to Capitalism). Climate change is not likely to be the only exception. Such a massive realignment implies severe disruption and great distress. But, invariably, tectonic shifts are followed by an extended period of creativity and growth. This time will be no different.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 01/11/2009
Globalisation is the latest manifestation of changes that have been going on in human society since the Black Death broke up the Manorial societies of Europe after the 14th century and began the process of separating people from their communities. Colonisation and the industrial revolution accelerated the process as have developments in transporation and communications. The result is that most of us in the developed world (and consequently most consumers) earn a living that is divorced from Earth’s resources and their extraction / processing etc. Our food, energy and the materials that we depend on are all commoditised. It could also be argued that since the Great Stink in 1858 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink) and Bazalgette’s development of covered sewers we have worked to commoditise and quite literally sanitize disposal of our waste.
Some of the benefits of these societal changes are; health (for those of us in the developed world), education, cheap goods, leisure and travel and economic growth.
Some of the disbenefits of societies where almost everything we use is commoditised include; disconnection from our food, energy and material supplies, a disengagement with our local communities and an expectation that every issue can be solved by passing responsibility and allocating resources to those in power.
I would argue that climate change will disrupt the societal model we have built for ourselves, and which others aspire to, in ways we cannot predict. For my local community I predict periods of heavy rainfall/flooding interspersed with periods of relative drought resulting in incremental adaptation in aspects of my housing, local flaura and fauna. Others will suffer different localised change. What I can’t forecast is; how much of my current diet I will be able to sustain, if I can count on or afford my current energy consumption, where I will get the materials I use to maintain my home and what the impact will be on my ability to earn a living.
I could envisage a scenario that is adaptive where I eat more seasonal vegetables, use energy efficient devices, grow different plants on my garden and pay more for my travel. Or, I could envisage flooding of the Thames resulting in closure of large parts of London resulting in me losing my job, financial markets in meltdown costing me my savings / pension and degradation in health as local and worldwide living standards decline contributing to pandemics of new and old diseases. Under these circumstances, where I get my next TV or mango from and how much it costs is largely irrelevant.
The first scenario is patently a selfish, short-term and unsustainable view. The latter likely to incite panic, irrational behaviour and potential conflict.
I would suggest that each of us needs to re-engage with our communities, local and networks, at both the intellectual and physical level. We need to understand where our stuff comes from and the consequences of its consumption from cradle to grave. We also need to physically reconnect by buying more local produce and materials (consuming what we can rather than what we want), generating our energy and disposing of our waste locally and not exporting our problems to other communities. Each of us must stop expecting others to solve all our problems especially as the current political systems are as commoditised and disconnected as our economic ones.
So, I argue we need to take ownership and responsibility. In the business world this used to be called proprietorial interest.
I for one am working on using energy ‘grids’ and other infrastructure as back-up only while producing as much of my own food as possible. I aim to keep the benefits of globalisation while limiting my contribution to the dis-benefits and minimising the risk of climate shock. The key is don’t panic, learn and act.
Researcher
International Institute for Environment and Development
said: On 01/11/2009
There is no single right way for society to adapt to rapid climate change. Rather, adaptation is contextually specific and depends heavily on the local situation. What is clear, however, is that adaptation will be most needed in some of the areas that are already vulnerable to a wide range of climate and other risks. My particular interest is in the urban areas of low- and middle-income nations. These contain an ever-increasing proportion of the world’s population, and concentrate many important economic, social and political activities. Many of these towns and cities will experience increased temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns (often leading to both flooding and droughts), and will be affected by rising sea levels as a consequence of climate change.
In this situation, three particular responses are required to minimise severe upheaval. Firstly, individuals, households and communities need to be supported in their existing coping strategies. Local knowledge is an important resource – people are already experts in dealing with climate variability, and can do much more if their experience and skills are taken into account. Secondly, there needs to be a focus on building resilience. Provision of health facilities, education, housing, water, sanitation and drainage is often severely lacking – and these services can provide an important set of safeguards that make residents of low-income urban settlements better able to cope with a variety of shocks and stresses. Finally, urban authorities – and national governments – need to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in place, and that this is both “climate-friendly” and “climate-proof”, addressing the challenges of mitigation and adaptation simultaneously.
Advisor
German Institute for International and Security Affairs
said: On 01/11/2009
It is well known but still has to be emphasized: climate change is a global problem. We will not solve the problem by increasing the sensitivity in our own society and trust on a bottom-up solution. It will not work. What we need is a global solution and, of course, aiming at both goals: mitigation and adaptation.
The only approach on mitigation with a chance to succeed is not a commitment of some 200 states in the world to reduce emissions by x percent until 2020 and by y percent until 2050. This approach is, for good reasons, not agreeable among the countries with the absolutely highest growth of greenhouse gas emissions, China, India and other emerging economies mainly in Asia.
What we need is a global cap and trade system with a cap according to the necessary emission reduction path and tradable emission rights. A central bank sells emission certificates and redistributes its income to the states according to a key with a strong per capita component. The redistributed money should be linked to modernization of the energy investment sector (including the transition process to non fossil fuels in the transportation sector) and for adaptation measures.
Such a system would motivate emerging economies to quickly modernize its energy consumption towards a non-fossil energy economy in order to profit from the emission trading and, at the same time, would put pressure on the industrialized world, also to push forward the transition to a low or zero carbon energy economy in order to prevent high net payments within the emission trading.
Anticipating the argument that such a solution would lead to an unacceptable high net transfer from the industrialized to the developing world three points are to be made:
(1) if we follow Nicholas Stern’s well known report (2006) which says that solving the problem costs roughly 1-2 percent of world GDP, the damage of business as usual, in contrast, costs more than 5 percent (up to 20 percent) of world GDP, we should keep in mind that one tenth of a percent of OECD GDP lies in the oder of $ 35 billion. We should think about accepting that one tenth to one twentieth of our necessary investment into mitigating climate change goes from industrialized to developing countries if this is the necessary incentive to make the global endeavour work.
(2) We don’t have to switch to a per capita distribution of the income from selling certificates immediately, but should organize the distribution in a way that a certain double digit billion dollar amount cannot be surpassed. Only in 2050 we should arrive at an equal distribution per capita.
(3) This strategy has the advantage that developing countries with low per capita emissions have not to be pushed to contribute to a common global emission restriction but they are invited by a monetary incentive. This, however, allows to let only those countries participate in the emission trading who accept a strict monitoring and sanction system in case of violations.
Conclusion: Our societies have to understand that climate change cannot be kept in manageable limits by making efforts in all societies that participate in a coalition of willings but those societies with the big emission growth rates have to be integrated into a solution and this works only on an incentive basis. The result is that a comparably small share of our montary investment has to flow to developing countries under conditions that offer the least expensive way to solve the problem. Tax payers have to understand it but it is a difficult task to communicate.
Researcher
Institute of Physics Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
said: On 01/11/2009
It is simple question but the answer is very, very difficult!
Recently, I took part in 2nd International Scientific “Energy and Climate Change” Conference (8,9 October 2009, Athens, Greece) and submit my paper “Environmental Risk of Power Engineering Pollution and Climate Change”. We analyzed the role of wastewater and air pollution as result of Power Engineering pollution. Anthropogenic activities of Power Engineering create wastewater and air pollution, lead to aerosol attenuation of solar radiation and to growth of entropy on the Earth and, as result, climate change. Also, this leads to greenhouse effect and, as result, to climate change. The human Power activities disturb heat and entropy balance and impair ecology. Wastewater in river and sea basins as well as air pollution can influence an exchange of energy between sunlight on the Earth and long-wave radiation leaving in space. We have carried out of entropy analyze of the Earth. It is very important, properly to take into account of energy conservation, entropic stability and to considerate this aspects relating to the global warming issue and climate change.
Sorry, for, maybe, a little strong scientific language. I think, first of all, society must to minimize Power Engineering pollution and reduce to zero; must more and more use renewable sources of energy: nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, ocean and sea streams. Then, society must be more adaptable, but how? It is depends on region. There are coastal regions near an ocean or a sea and there are continental regions. There are different conditions, different climate change and so adaptability of society will be different. But I know exactly: society must adapt to climate change!
Associate Director
WSP Environment & Energy
said: On 01/11/2009
The challenge of adapting to changing climate, however rapid, is without precedent and as such it is extremely difficult for all elements of society to judge the scale and scope of the challenge they face.
Climate change will of course impact different countries in different ways. For instance in the United Kingdom the biggest impact will be an increase in frequency and severity of flooding whilst some benefits may be experienced through reduced energy consumption and increased crop yields. By contrast in sub-Saharan Africa it will be population migration from marginal agricultural land to cities. Here in Eastern Europe, summer precipitation is predicted to continue to decrease, causing higher water stress with health risks due to heat waves also being projected to increase.
In terms of how society must adapt, each country, municipality and large company (especially utilities) should be preparing and implementing a detailed climate adaptation strategy. This requires a much greater level of understanding, through modeling and scenario development, than is currently available in many regions and corporations. Measures to be taken must focus upon social infrastructure improvements such as transport, water, waste, energy supply, flood defences and buildings. Where the predicted effects of climate change are well enough known, engineers should be tasked with providing the necessary solutions within their designs, with the most successful societies being those that encourage and harness innovation and long term sustained flexibility, without seriously inhibiting short term growth.
There is no doubting the political shift towards the carbon agenda, but in recent weeks we have seen the devastating effects of climatic events. Irrespective of the debate over the causes of climate change the effects must be tackled to avoid further upheaval. Generally organizations are completely focused on carbon reduction and whilst this is laudable and should continue to be encouraged there is much more for them to be doing in terms of climate change adaptation.
Director Sales & Marketing
Petrotec AG
said: On 02/11/2009
By quickly using the existing CO2-neutral alternatives like renewable diesel from waste.
Petrotec Biodiesel currently produces 200 million litres of this advanced biofuel by using used cooking oil it collects from restaurants and the catering industry.
It uses a tailored multi-feedstock technology which entails a closed recycling process and thus offers the highest energetic benefit and maximum eco-friendliness in line with EU and other international norms.
Executive Director
RE Sources for Sustainable Communities
said: On 02/11/2009
My view is that we have to think in terms of lifeboats. By that I mean that each locale–be it city, town, valley or watershed–should ask: where will we get the essentials (e.g., clean water, food, energy, skills, etc.) locally should everything fall apart? Once this set of questions is answered and gaps identified, communities should then start the process of managing for that eventuality. If the collapse does not happen then they have simply come closer together as a community and invested in local infrastructure which they probably need to do anyway. But if the predicted collapse does materialize, then they are way ahead of the game. This is really a rewarding exercise to go through on so many different levels.
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 02/11/2009
IT all depends on the definition of “rapid” climate change and to what extent the change is headed towards a path that cannot be affected and does not fluctuate.
Societal change that would be required in the case of massive impact potential from cliatme would be a shift from tribalism and nationalism to a more global perspective on resource management, environmental regulation, fuel supplies, clean water and food production.
The extreme would response is to actually regress society back to a more agrarian approach to food, living, commerce and diminish the need for resources of major scale. (Not too likely however given the fundamental nature of society).
The other adaptations that might manifest themselves as options are major population shifts, development of sea resources, and the way out there answer of space colonization as a possible “next home” for mankind.
Professor of Geography
Rutgers University
said: On 02/11/2009
Initially, it will be important to strengthen post-disaster recovery programs because more devastating events are likely to occur in the short run while society learns to adjust to new climatic norms. Unlike the bricks and mortar rebuilding programs that have dominated past disaster recovery efforts, new initiatives should embrace the concept of holistic recovery that also incorporates goals of economic rejuvenation, environmental revitalization and societal equity. Holistic recovery programs are already on the books in New Zealand and the model could readily be adopted elsewhere. Because holistic recovery is more comprehensive and nimbler than traditional approaches it can shorten the period of loss and provide a good springboard for launching the kinds of broad-based flexible responses that are essential components of a general climate adaptation strategy.
Such a strategy should be crafted with two target populations in mind. First are the groups that have been particularly vulnerable to climate risks in recent decades. Whereas climate disasters of the distant past affected a very wide spectrum of humans, in the last century the chief burdens have been repeatedly borne by poor and politically marginalized people. Now the specter of rapid climate change also threatens a second population; well-provisioned and privileged groups will be exposed to physical risks that are outside of their experience as well as being potentially devastating.
Putting into practice measures of hazard management and disaster mitigation that are already known can go a very long way toward successful adaptation for both groups. As codified in the International Strategy for Risk Reduction and the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction there exist well thought out blueprints and proven techniques for preventing, avoiding and reducing the kinds of disasters that are threatened accompaniments of rapid climate change. Many of these emphasize steps that can be taken in developing countries to reduce losses associated with longstanding human vulnerabilities, especially those that are forced by factors of poverty, rapid rural to urban migration and sociopolitical marginality.
Among more privileged populations in Europe, North America, Japan and elsewhere, where 20th century risk management organizations achieved considerable success in the reduction of human casualties due to climate hazards, the primary challenge is to refocus attention on the emergence of physical risks that have enhanced potency. Here existing hazard management institutions and professions should expand their purview to take account of events that, because of their rarity, would previously have fallen outside conventional planning protocols. Thresholds of sensitivity to hazard and standards of protection already vary significantly among countries so the task of setting new planning goals is not as formidable as it might seem; there is a wide range of models from which to choose. Forensic research on environmental extremes that preceded systematic historic recordkeeping is also well advanced and the database necessary for establishing more demanding planning criteria based on these findings, is growing apace.
Finally, since the vast majority of people in developed countries who will be newly exposed to climate risks have had only limited experience with disasters – but are increasingly being called on to share responsibility for their own protection – they will require careful education about the parameters of hazard. This means not only assuaging fears about unfamiliar risks but also demonstrating productive ways of intervention that lie within their power to effectuate. This may prove to be a particularly difficult task in an era when worries about terrorism and acute pandemics have encouraged a dependent victim-centered public perspective on environmental hazards. However, more privileged populations have hitherto connected with extreme events not just because of the risks they pose but for a wide spectrum of other reasons including, curiosity, opportunities for profit, creative stimulus, catharsis, entertainment and empathy, among many others. Rather than being seen as diversions from essential tasks of survival these types of engagement signal opportunities for creating broader partnerships in support of climate change policy by bringing previously unrecognized stakeholders from unmobilized interest groups into the decision-making arena.
Senior Associate
WRI, Climate and Energy Program
said: On 02/11/2009
The effects of global climate change are likely to cause social, economic and political change on an unprecedented scale, and planning for adaptation is critical. Adaptation means learning to live with these changes, and preparing for other changes that are unavoidable. These changes are already upon us, yet we’re only starting to think of how to plan on a large scale for adaptation.
The world’s poorest are likely to be disproportionally affected by climate change, while also trying to pull themselves out of poverty. Therefore, it is critical that adaptation efforts be designed to reach the poorest communities in order to safeguard their development efforts. Likewise, development must foster adaptation if it is to succeed under a changing climate. This will require a significant increase in funding from the developed to the developing world. Moreover, effective adaptation calls for the “mainstreaming” of climate responses into a wide range of planning and management processes. This means finding new ways to transcend institutional boundaries, bring together diverse stakeholders, and incorporate complex information into decision-making.
One approach to this challenge is to identify a set of fundamental functions that all countries must perform if they are to respond effectively to climate change. For example, these functions might include managing information needed for adaptation decisions, involving stakeholders in adaptation planning, creating incentives for the private sector to adapt, or integrating climate change into disaster risk reduction. Countries will all perform these functions differently, depending on their national circumstances, but the core of the function is the same. The capacities needed to perform key adaptation functions can be thought of as elements of a national “adaptation system” that will support society in the long-term, iterative process of adjusting as the climate changes. Unfortunately, few countries are fully equipped with the information systems, policy structures, and basic institutions that provide such capabilities.
So what might an effective national adaptation policy look like? Requirements will vary from country to country, but some common, key elements of good adaptation include:
• Integrated Approaches: To be most effective, climate adaptation programs and policies should be integrated with day-to-day economic development activities in all sectors, such as water and forestry management and agricultural policy.
• Multi-Level: Adaptation requires planning and action at multiple levels — national, state, local and project-level.
• Top-Down: Policy changes at national, state and provincial levels can enable behavioral change at the household and community levels. For example, extension service personnel need to know about climate change in order to help farmers adapt agricultural practices.
• Bottom-Up: Communities’ priorities and innovations need to inform national decisions, and their adaptation successes should be replicated and scaled up.
• Citizen-Centered: Local communities, especially those who will be most affected by climate impacts, must be involved in adaptation planning and decision-making at all levels, and their rights respected by the global community and national governments.
• Flexible: Adaptation itself must also be flexible and adaptive. We don’t exactly know yet what effects will come with a changing climate, so having policies and systems in place that can adjust to changing circumstances is very important.
• Monitoring Learning: Adaptation efforts should be reviewed and updated so that successful programs can be replicated and unsuccessful programs can be adjusted to suit the needs of the vulnerable population.
Member
European Parliament
said: On 02/11/2009
Transport is responsible for 30% of Europe’s CO2-emissions today. The figure is this high due to a 35% rise since 1990 and it is expected to increase even further in the future. This development is contrary to the achievements in industry and housing during the same time, where a decrease of 10% has been reached. Therefore, the transport sector nullifies all the positive results we have managed to achieve in other sectors through billions of Euros of our taxpayers’ money. As shocking as these figures are – they also point us in the right direction when it comes to the question of tackling climate change.
Due to the transport sector’s enormous CO2-emissions, it is clear that we have to change two fundamental things: First, decision-makers need to change the existing policies and start focusing on the promotion of environmentally friendly transport. Secondly, society must adapt and embrace those changes.
Further on the first point, not enough is currently being done to increase passenger and freight transport by rail, which is one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport. In fact, the existing rules disproportionately disadvantage rail transport in many aspects in comparison to air and road. This becomes evident through the following four examples:
1. For every locomotive in Europe there is a toll for each kilometre (which can be set at any amount by the individual member states). However, no such mandatory toll system applies to either road or air transport. On the contrary, the EU rules leave it up to each member state whether or not to introduce toll systems on their roads. And if they choose to do so, any such toll is capped at a maximum amount. Moreover, it will mostly only apply on motorways and only to lorries above 12 tonnes, not to smaller freight transporters or people carriers.
For transport by air, a comparable system only applies to air planes flying over Siberia.
2. Whereas the airline industry benefits from tax breaks for their kerosene (€14bn per year), the railway companies have to pay tax on every litre of diesel they use.
3. The railway companies already have to participate fully in the trade of CO2-emissions. However, for the airlines this is only scheduled to be introduced in 2012. And even then, once they have reached their allocated CO2-emissions limit, 85% of their certificates are exempt so that they will only need to buy the rights for 15%.
4. Airplane tickets for international flights are VAT exempt whereas the full amount of VAT is charged on cross-border rail tickets by many governments, including Germany.
These examples show that environmentally friendly modes of transport are gravely and unfairly disadvantaged. Therefore, in order to fight climate change, these existing rules must be changed as soon as possible – at least to the effect that they create the basis for fair competition between road, rail and air transport. Our ultimate goal should then be to give preferential treatment to transport which does not harm the environment.
With regards to how society needs to adapt, this is indeed a fundamental question. Society plays an important role in the fight against climate change as it is up to the people to implement any political change and, for example, use environmentally friendly modes of transport instead of “climate killers” like cars and air planes.
The reason why we as individuals are so important becomes clear when we consider the following statistics: 80% of the people in the EU live in cities or towns. And in these towns and cities transport is responsible for 70% of all emissions, which are harmful to the climate.
Urban transport therefore provides one of Europe’s biggest problems. However, it is also a great opportunity for change: For example, in Germany 90% of all inner-city journeys made by car are less than 6 kilometres. These can and should instead be made by public transport, bike or on foot. Therefore, by changing small daily habits, such as cycling to work or walking to the letterbox instead of taking the car, we can all help the fight against climate change.
Associate Researcher
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
said: On 02/11/2009
Severe upheaval – understood as substantial domestic unrest, violence perhaps even civil war, is first and foremost a problem related to poverty and poor governance. Poor states with low growth, unstable governments, high levels of corruption and a history of previous upheavals are currently the ones that are most likely to be struck by internal conflict. I see no reason to believe that climate changes will change this.
On the contrary, climate changes may exacerbate the challenges that these countries already face. Sadly, many of these countries also figure among the ones most likely to be severely affected by climate changes.
There is currently no well established connection between climate changes and the risk of conflict. Cases where environmental scarcities or natural disasters have contributed to conflict do exist, but there are also similar counter-cases where no conflict or even improved cooperation was the outcome. While conflicts over diminishing water resources, for example, are often spoken about, they are less frequently observed. The cases where scarcities have led to increased cooperation rather than conflict are frequently ignored. Since few systematic studies that take both the occurrence and non-occurrence of conflict into account have been conducted, we do unfortunately lack much information about if and how climate changes can be expected to affect the risk of conflict.
While the physical effects of climate changes are beyond the reach of any single government or societal actor, how these effects translate into realities on the ground is a different matter. How people experience the effects of climate changes will depend very much on which society they live in. Affluent, well-organized states will be far more able to adapt to- and minimize the negative effects of climate changes than poor, unstable countries. This illustrates how the extent to which climate changes affect the risk of violence will be closely connected to the social, political and economic situation in the country in question. Sadly, it also illustrates how those who are already worst off will, unless drastic steps are taken, fare even worse due to the effects of climate changes.
To assess whether climate change will affect the risk of violence, it is necessary to consider how known risk-factors are likely be affected by the changes, and then to what extent this can be prevented. The most promising way to prevent climate changes from translating into increased levels of violence in poor countries appears to be an approach that focus on a combination of general ‘society-building’ and targeted measures to adapt to- and reduce the effects of local manifestations of climate changes.
In other words, this does not deviate much from the development assistance that has been received by poor countries for decades. Improving economic conditions, educating children, providing jobs and, not least, improving the quality of governmental institutions appear to be among the most effective measures for minimizing both the risk of severe upheavals and reducing negative impacts of climate changes.
The good news is that these are all well-known measures that have been undertaken for years. The bad news is that the progress has been painfully slow, and that the effects of climate changes appear likely to make it even slower and in some cases even reverse it.
Director
Climate Change Risk Management
said: On 03/11/2009
First this begs the question as to what constitutes ‘rapid climate change’. The climate forcing that we have imposed on the atmosphere over the past 100 years has produced rapid warming in the context of global change over the past 10,000 years, but this would not necessarily be thought of as ‘rapid’ by policymakers and planners. Their view of ‘rapid’ might be seen as significant change occurring over decadal timescales. This has happened in the recent past, but only at regional or hemispheric scales.
Second, what does the question mean about ‘climate’? Is the question asking about temperature changes over decadal scales? These are unlikely to occur at a global level (the requirement for significant forcing shifts will see to that). More likely are temperature changes at the regional level caused by reorganisation of ocean or atmospheric currents, and these can, and have, occurred during periods of no overall global warming. The significance of these temperature shifts may be felt beyond the region if they impact on human systems with connections to other parts of the world. Even more likely than rapid shifts in temperature are changes in regional precipitation amounts or timing which produce periods of drought or flood or changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events. Their impact is likely to be far more severe than shifts in temperature and we have seen the impacts of these in the recent past with the Sahel drought of the 1970s and 1980s.
At a global scale, the likely manifestation of rapid climate change must be the impact of rapid sea level rise. This can only occur if we have increased ice loss from the two large ice sheets on earth (the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Sheet). Even here, any rapid sea level rise would likely occur over centuries and would not be uniform globally. However, current estimates of sea level rise for the remainder of the century are around 1-2m, which is much higher than the IPCC estimates produced in 2007, and this will have severe implications for the millions of people who live near the coasts and many of the globe’s major cities that are located near to the sea.
So, climate change (that is, rapid changes in temperature or precipitation) will most likely be felt only at the regional scale. The obvious answer to; ‘how should societies adapt’, is ‘to what are we adapting?’. The answer to this depends on whether the climate models on which we base projections are accurate. We know that they do a good job at the global scale and with metrics such as temperature; we also know that their predictions are much more uncertain at the regional scale and with precipitation. However, it is at the regional scale that planners, businesses and governments want to understand future climate; and it is changes in precipitation that will play the biggest role in impacting global systems. We are therefore hit by a double problem. Understanding rapid climate change and creating the systems to react to it, will require a set of sophisticated risk assessment and management tools. As a society, we have hardly begun the process to develop these.
Vice President
Sustainability and Energy WSP Environment & Energy
said: On 03/11/2009
The most fundamental impacts of rapid climate change will be water shortages and food shortages in certain regions, and inundation of seashores, which will prompt mass migrations of climate refugees and social chaos in the affected regions. Other impacts include expanded range of tropical diseases, accelerated species extinctions, and increased loss of property and human life from more intense storms and floods.
As is too often the case with natural and man-made disasters, it will be the world’s poorest who will bear the brunt of the effects of rapid climate change. It is incumbent on the rest of us to create mechanisms by which these climate change-related burdens can be lessened. Such mechanisms must include expansion of quick-response disaster relief organizations, expansion of aid to implement more resilient food and water supply systems within poor countries, and expansion of health-care delivery aimed at slowing the spread of diseases.
These actions represent very large financial costs to the developed world and, for this reason, the likely response of the rich countries will unfortunately be insufficient. However, equally imperative are aggressive actions to reduce GHG emissions throughout the global economy. Since most emissions mitigation actions yield multiple collateral benefits, such as increased economic activity, job creation, increased tax revenue, improved public health, and improved environmental quality, there are real and tangible benefits to both developed and developing economies that will result from aggressive pursuit of climate protection actions. For these reasons, the balance of the views I present in this forum will focus on emissions mitigation actions that society must take immediately. My remarks aim at necessary societal changes; but since society comprises groups of individuals, my remarks also target individual behavioral changes.
Behavioral changes needed to be made by individuals in the developed world:
- Drive less
- Fly less
- Buy less energy-intensive, less water-intensive products
- Less packaging
- Less-processed food
- Locally produced products
- Less red meat and pork
- Use less water in the home and in the yard
Societal changes needed worldwide:
- Government policies that establish unsubsidized energy prices and water prices that internalize the true costs of environmental impacts and other externalizations
- Government policies and programs promoting
- Carbon sequestration
- Biochar as soil amendment
- Construction materials and plastics containing carbon that has been scrubbed directly from atmosphere
- Aggressive energy efficiency generally but including
- Mass transit powered by sustainable energy
- Smart grid and smart end-use devices
- Aggressive increases in mandated vehicle fuel efficiency
- Flex-fuel mandate for all new vehicles
- Plug-in electric vehicles charged with sustainable energy
- Next-generation biofuels made from non-food biomass and municipal solid waste
- Commodity chemicals derived from non-food biomass and municipal solid waste
- Low-water use systems
- Fixtures and appliances
- Xeriscape landscaping
- Drip irrigation
- For agriculture
- For homes
- Recycling and composting
- Financing mechanisms that leverage private capital to implement all of the above
- Government policies that discourage
- Urban sprawl
- Water-intensive landscaping
- Water-intensive agricultural practices
- Insurance industry and government policies that discourage
- Development on seashores
Author
Divine Primates: Hope For Our Stressed-Out Species
said: On 05/11/2009
Typically, human societies lack the foresight to live sustainably. Global climate change is here, and many still use denial to continue on their merry way, exploiting resources without considering the consequences. Society will adapt, and we have already seen this with overvaluing of fossil fuels, denial of alternative fuels, and the real estate and banking “bubbles”, all of which were significantly affected by awareness of global climate change, so the adaptations are often pathological.
Those who are leaders and visionaries among the herds must work to create paths of sustainable culture for society to follow towards safety. Emergency planning is one such path, and it is vital that sufficient resources be devoted to storing food and water as well as plans for sustainable development and relocations that will be necessary due to ecological changes. Population control is another key path to allow people to live sustainably, and this will require a shift from fundamentalist religious cultures that demand irresponsible overpopulation. Peacemaking and intercultural awareness is another path of great import. As the world shrinks, we can not afford to harbor misunderstandings and conflicts that obscure the facts that we are all humans and our similarities far outweigh our differences.
Our culture is adapting to overpopulation and pollution as any species would. There is a rise in stress and anxiety and we need leaders and practitioners to help encourage people to take better care of themselves and their families and communities. Stress, itself, is a powerful destabilizing factor that contributes to fundamentalism and nationalistic and tribal frenzies. Acceptance of homosexuality as an adaptation to environmental stresses may be an important part of understanding the impact of global climate change as it is a natural phenomenon that reduces population growth.
Even though nobody should be surprised at rapid climate change, human societies have enormously powerful cultures that cause massive denial and resulting helplessness. There is pressure for quick answers and quick fixes that invariable deepen and spread our crises in the long term. It is vital that leadership play a role in creating culture that will serve, in times of crisis, to refocus people on strengthening their comminities and intercommunities rather than on maximixing individual profit and “security” at the expense of creating a chaotic reality in which stress, depression and paranoia are encouraged.
In my opinion, one of the key cultural changes that is necessary is letting go of the idea of human perfection – and understanding more about how our nature, and our happiness, is more connected with the natural world and our communities rather than on individual wealth and power. To do this, I am using the “Divine Primates” concept to help re-frame the current perceptions of human society to look at our human nature in a context of being pragmatic primates rather than ideological, technological or theological beings driven by rationalizations of perfectability.
Links: http://www.divineprimates.com
Director
CSIRO
said: On 05/11/2009
Human beings are an interesting lot. On an intellectual level we understand our mortality. We have a workable understanding of our environment. We measure things and can pick trends – both natural and human induced. We communicate and learn from others in our increasingly global village. Using these attributes, we have the ability to envision the future. And there are warning clouds gathering.
I refer here of course, to climate change. By any measure, the changes we have seen, and particularly the changes we project to come, are cause for deep concern. However, as a global society, are we sufficiently committed to put in place the really significant actions needed to ameliorate and adapt to the negative effects of climate change? I think the answer to this is, on average, no. In the developed nations, we resist actions that are perceived as threats to our life styles. In the developing countries, people are getting on with improving their living standards. Climate change is still down our list of concerns.
From a dry, quasi-economic perspective, combating climate change is all about risk minimisation. This is perhaps not the most exciting perspective to engage society. Like it or not, one gets the feeling that only a string of obvious climate change-induced impacts will galvanise people into full acceptance of the need to be pro-active. Perhaps something like particular parts of countries becoming uninhabitable due to rising water levels and/or regular mega storms, with all the associated social and economic disruption is needed. A bit drastic? Maybe, but this is what it might take.
In the meantime it is the role of climate and social scientist to develop ways of presenting information to the community to bring home the full implications of what we face in an understandable way. This includes involving all parts of science (including the social sciences) and engineering to develop the mitigation and adaptation “blue prints” for individual counties and the globe as a whole. Communities need to see the world acting in concert in a planned, rational and fully reasoned way to avoid severe upheaval. The keys are communication, understanding and common actions towards a common goal.
There are many ways of involving the community in joint actions with government and industry. However, these avenues have only been lightly travelled. It will be imperative to involve the community at every stage in the climate change journey so that awareness is at a high level and “surprises” are limited. There is no doubt that we will not succeed in avoiding the worst impacts of climate change unless the community is fully behind what will be a range of difficult measures.
The challenge will be to develop the most effective ways of communicating why change is required and how it can be achieved for the common good.
Programmer and Software Tester
Self-Employed
said: On 06/11/2009
We should make every effort to minimize global warming while we still can, but time is running out so rapidly, and prevention measures are progressing so slowly, that we should also think about how we can adapt if/when we fail to prevent major climate changes.
For a period of time we’ll continue to see more of what we are seeing now: increased droughts, fires, and heat waves, melting glaciers and sea ice, severe weather events, and so on. I think the first really serious problem will be a lack of food and water. The Himalayan glaciers that supply water to over a billion people could be gone as early as 2035, and other glaciers around the world are also quickly melting. With only a little more warming, which is already “in the pipeline”, many of the World’s most productive food regions will suffer mega-droughts, lack of water because of shifting monsoons, or encroaching deserts. Together these could create a worldwide food shortage on a scale we have never seen, in addition to lack of water for those people.
We could try to store vast amounts of food in preparation. That would increase food costs now, making people suffer. But since we aren’t now willing to increase our hardship enough to significantly reduce emissions, we probably won’t store vast amounts of food either. Besides, this would not be a temporary change. So the best thing we could do may be to prepare for growing more food in places that are currently too cold, like parts of Canada and Siberia. If we prepare ourselves well, we could shift food production more quickly and reduce future food shortages. Of course, people will still have to migrate from places where there is not enough water. But if global warming does not spiral out of control because of feedback, this type of preparation could help enormously.
Unfortunately, I am worried that feedback will take warming so far so quickly that we will not be able to adapt in time. This is partly because feedback has already begun, and partly because a new report says the last time CO2 concentrations were at their current level, the temperature was 10 to 15 degrees F hotter. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com) If that report is correct, I think it means feedback will take over, unless we quickly get CO2 concentrations down. But even if we drastically reduce emissions, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will fall very slowly. So not only must we reduce emissions drastically and quickly, we also probably need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere if we want to avoid feedback taking warming out of control. We may be able to buy some time by using other Geoengineering methods to reduce the temperature, but those are pretty risky and we don’t know how well they will work, and the effort would need to be maintained indefinitely.
Based on how we have reacted over the past 20 years, I don’t see much hope of us preventing a bleak future. At the point the really bad effects start happening, we will be so focused on dealing with those effects that I don’t think we will be able to put much effort into Geoengineering projects. I think the population will drop drastically (not by choice), and that will be the point where we will reduce our emissions the way we should be reducing them now. But the effects will continue to worsen for decades after that, and they will stay in that worse state for many centuries. It will be a very difficult time to be alive. I think humans will adapt, as long as things don’t get too bad. But there is a chance the next great extinction would occur, and that would make it much more difficult for humans to survive.
Executive Director
The GEO Project
said: On 06/11/2009
Mobilizing our civilization for a drastically changing future, that is more likely than not going to deliver a shocking blow, is surely the greatest challenge of our era!
Although the extremist in me would suggest that we should perhaps literally “shut down” everything that we do that isn’t already sustainable, and otherwise responsible, until we regroup & reorganize with a sustainable strategy, I also understand that people are highly adverse to change, especially to such drastic measures, so it is probably wiser to steadily change & adapt our civilization’s habits & our lifestyles step-by-step in order to curb the many potentially adverse effects that may rise from our current ways of life.
Some startling facts about our ill-fated consumption habits:
1) In the last 3 decades alone, 1/3 of the earth’s natural resources have been consumed!
2) 80% of the earth’s original forests are gone!
3) We would need 5 planets if everyone consumed at present American rates! (probably most other developed regions too)
*From recent article in Alive Magazine: http://www.alive.com/7380a19a2.php?current_topic=33
Solutions start with building a sustainable future:
1) LEED could make up about half a carbon “wedge” by 2050 from various CO2 reductions
2) Nearly 60% of LEED points have some impact on energy savings (energy generation currently a leading cause of emissions)
3) Current projections put LEED 2030 savings at >30% of non-residential water use (water processing #1 energy consumer & water scarcity is potentially #1 future public health issue)
*From Green Building Market Impact Report ‘09 presented by “Founding Father of LEED” Rob Watson.
The benefits are in our global economy:
1) Investing 1% of global GDP could maintain safe levels of greenhouse gases
2) Failure to act could lead to damage costing much more, estimated at least 5% & perhaps over 20% of global GDP
3) Shifting to low-carbon could benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion / year
*From Stern Report ‘06 presented by Sir Nicholas Stern, Fmr World Bank Chief Economist
Sustainability is key & we must adhere to the evolving standards; I just hope that we have enough time to act effectively.
To a mobilized civilization adapted for a brighter future!
One Solution You Too Can Take-Part In:
Vote Earth350 PPM: the People Powered Movement helps busy professionals quickly & easily have their say in a fair & binding climate treaty ahead of COP15 when world leaders gather in Copenhagen this December.
EasyClick Linked-in Poll:
http://polls.linkedin.com/poll-results/63549/znkvu
Linked-in Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=2428308&trk=anet_ug_grppro
Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-Earth350-PPM-People-Powered-Movement/315808545470?ref=ts
Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166889148189&ref=ts
Twitter: @votePPM & support with #GreenRibbon
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 09/11/2009
If there is to be rapid climate change then much needs to be done now, not when it may be too late. One side of the strategies will focus on energy use. Then there is the issue of changing agricultural systems. The next side of the strategies will focus on safety and security issues for the public, for infrastructure and more. Still another side will focus on economic issues related to potential effects of rapid climate change. Yet another will need to look at the health and sanitation issues involved. There will also be a military side and a diplomatic side to what needs to be done. There will also be educational and informational sides to the needed strategies.
Energy use:
If the rapid climate change is due to the use of fossil fuels, especially in electricity production, the largest source of C02 emissions worldwide, and transport, the second largest source of C02 emissions worldwide, and then on down the list to energy use in industry, agriculture, commerce and residences then some big changes would be needed to help mitigate the effects of these energy uses. One would also need changes to help prevent possibly increasing the acceleration of climate change by continuing doing what we have been doing. What could be done in the short and medium runs?
We are unlikely change from fossil fuels overnight or even in a couple of decades without severe economic shocks. For all of the fossil fuel plants we shut down we need to have replacements of those gigawatts of electricity plus some more to keep up with electricity demand. We also have to consider how such changes could affect the use of the electricity grids that are connected to such plants, both the old ones and the new, more environmentally sustainable ones. Something we could move on maybe a bit faster could be in tightening up on the efficiencies of present fossil fuel plants and the significantly increased use of combined heat, cooling and power. We need to utilize more usable energy from the fossil fuels that we mostly waste, which given the hypothetical scenario we are discussing is mostly caused by the wasted energy, not the usable energy. About 70 percent, and often more, of the fossil fuel energy that goes into the typical fossil fuel generating plant is wasted in heat dissipated into the air around the plant. A significant proportion is also lost in transmission and distribution. Then we have our wasteful ways of lighting, heating, cooling, and doing other things, like running the absurdly wasteful electric bread toasters. If we look at the typical light bulb and follow the energy from the fossil fuel put into the electricity plant to the light bulb in the house or office we see that only about 2-3 percent of the original fossil fuel is used. The rest is wasted in heat and transmission and distribution losses due to our inertial attachment to mostly early to mid-20th century thinking and technologies.
The typical petrol run automobile uses about 85 percent of the fossil fuels put into them to move the weight of the vehicle, not the cargo and persons inside. Light-weighting of cars, changing to different drive trains and engines, applying technologies that convert breaking to energy, and more could be applied in fairly quick fashion so we could not only reduce our fossil fuel use, but also reduce our production of C02. The burning of fossil fuels is the largest source of greenhouse gases by far.
There is surely more to this issue, but one would have to wait for my book to read all about those.
The bottom line is that there needs to be significant changes in the energy systems we use, the end uses of that energy, and, most particularly, how efficient we are in the use of our energy and environmental resources as a combined system within systems. However, all of these changes need to be phased in carefully, and globally, over a long time period (maybe 4-5 decades with some periods of increasing rates of transition, and others with flattening or even decreasing rates of transition) in order to minimize the economic and social disruptions that may occur from the transition to a new and more sustainable energy future.
Change in Agricultural Systems:
Land use and types and methods of agriculture are some of the major sources of climate change. How is that? Well, when farmers cut down trees and clear out other natural material that act as carbon sinks then the carbon cycle equilibrium is thrown off a bit. If this happens to a large extent, as has been happening, then we have further and more significant disruptions in the carbon cycle. Also, when we have cattle, sheep and other ruminant animals growing in numbers and producing methane from their digestive systems without any mitigating actions then we throw off the methane balance all else being equal. The burning of crops and the unsustainable use of water also adds to the climate problems, as does the deforestation that occurs for cattle grazing and cropping as we know it know. Many of the ways that we do agriculture worldwide will have to change to help rebalance the C02, methane and other cycles.
As with the use of fossil fuels this will need to be phased in, and will need to be global. It will also need to be done with common sense and in the view of the realities on the ground in various countries and regions in order to adjust and adapt policies to fit circumstances.
Safety and security for the public and infrastructure:
With rapid climate change there may be changes in weather and storm patterns, as well as significant rises in the sea level. This could be a serious safety issue for some, including those living in coastal cities, in the Egyptian Nile Delta, in most parts of Bangladesh, and on some island states, amongst many others. Barriers may help solve this for a while, but will they work in the long run? Who is to know? I don’t. Roads, railroads, electric grids, and more will also be at risk. This could have serious economic and other repercussions. Many nuclear and other electricity plants are on rivers and on coastlines. What will need to be done? Put barriers around them? Move them uphill? Figure out a better way of making that same amount of electricity and more? There is a lot to think on these issues.
There will also need to be a common sense approach to phasing these changes in as well.
Economic issues:
If the Stern Report and many other reports are to be believed then we are in for some potentially shocking economic losses for many reasons from the effects of climate change, and in particular rapid climate change. Some economists think the results will be minor, but whenever I meet with such economists I wonder whether we are living on the same planet. I also inquire about what there assumptions are. Never have I heard any of them talk about the security and instability issues that could result and the costs from those. They usually stick to very narrow assumptions that often are so far from the potential realities as to make their work useless.
We may need to change the way certain things are made. We may have to change what we consume and how we consume these things. Actually, we might have a much better lifestyle if we reduce the junk goods and focus on those we really need and enjoy. But those are personal choices, and hence difficult to define within large populations. Many people may lose their jobs if infrastructure is disrupted, weather patterns, and other systems are disrupted. We have to worry about a lot of uncertainties in all of this. However, any economic and production changes, technology changes, water use changes, etc. need to be preplanned and worked toward prior to, and in the hope of mitigating, and rapid climate change.
Again, common sense and flexible, creative thinking will be required.
Health and sanitation:
With changes in the hydrological cycles, weather patterns, temperatures and more one might expect that health situations may change. Buildings have been built in the past in order to fit into specific climates. The same could be said of water systems and other systems that may have effects on health and sanitation. Temperature increases, however, could be a two-edged sword. Sometimes that increased temperature and UV light could be used to disinfect water cheaply, such as is done with the SODIS methods. However, as the temperature and other natural cycles change we will also need to change the way we do many things in order to either keep the health and sanitation situations at normal or close to normal levels, or even improve them. Necessity is the mother of invention. The guillotine (in this case some of the harshest effects of climate change) most certainly will clarify some mind. People can get very creative when they are put in very stressful and challenging situations.
Military and diplomatic:
A good introduction to the military and diplomatic sides to this can be seen and heard in a video from the Center for Naval Analysis in the US that has many 3 and 4 star admirals and generals discussing the possible effects of climate change on US national security. It is a real eye-opener and can be found at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/video. The accompanying report can also be found at the Center for Naval Analysis web site. The Pentagon, NATO, and the armed forces and ministries of foreign affairs from the US State Department to the ministries in many countries are considering the military and diplomatic sides of what might happen and what may need to be done when these things happen — as well as what could be done to help prevent rapid climate change or at least mitigate it or its results. Coalitions need to be built. Militaries will need to be engaged and put to their best use in certain regions that may become more insecure or places where there were somewhat functioning states may become failed or failing states. There are examples of countries and areas where climate change and weather pattern changes have lead to state failure. Somalia is a clear example of that in many ways, even though other reasons were behind its miserable demise. Darfur’s problems are partly due to changes in the hydrological cycles as well as in overgrazing and land degradation. Militaries, diplomatic corps and others need to seriously look at how climate change and other changes that may result from it can affect economic and political systems worldwide and regionally. If economies in some places are hit very hard we could be looking at considerable instability, and even increased recruitment and activities of violent extremists of all varieties. There might also be an increase in inter-state tensions over resources like water, energy, food, arable land, and more. The planning and thinking need to begin now. It would be within the heights of follow to try to think about solutions and mitigation actions only when the events unfold. Actually, that is not the way the best militaries and diplomatic corps work so well. They do lots of planning, “war gaming”, and simulations of various potential events. One can be sure that is happening now. One would hope that some good answers are coming out of these efforts.
Diplomats, military officers, academics, politicians, and others need to work together on this in interdisciplinary and practical projects. One discipline, given the way we have narrowed our disciplines, can handle these problems.
Educational and informational:
The toughest part of the overall strategies for managing, mitigating and possibly preventing rapid climate change may be just the educational and informational sides. The general public and leaders worldwide will need to be educated on the basics of the problems that may arise and the reasons behind those problems. Given that the problems and the reasons for climate change are often complex, interrelated, recursive, non-linear and just downright brain busting at times this can be a tough thing to do. Education and information programs, positive and constructive ones that is, need to begin in earnest well before the rapid climate change may happen.
The debates on these issues need to get to much higher levels, and must be fact and reality based. The education that is given needs to be also based in science with the highest degree of confidence in results that are possible. There is a lot of disinformation out along the entire spectrum of those involved in the “debate”: from those who profess to believe in rapid climate change to those who think climate change is a huge conspiracy of left wing, pointy-headed radicals. We need to focus on reason and realistic, effective strategies targeting real issues and solutions. Without the proper education at all levels the debate may continue to be, to put it nicely, of fairly spotty quality.
Overall, am I convinced that rapid climate change is coming? Not really, but if it is I would rather have our leadership and our people prepared. Also, my sense from my studies, which started in 1985, of these issues, is that we really cannot say with certainty how climate change will play out.
If climate change happens in a relatively slow and linear way then all of these issues might be more smoothly and slowly handled. The transitions needed would not need to be rapid and societies, economies, militaries and more can take their time to adapt and adjust to whatever changes might happen. That would be one of the best of all possible worlds, but can we be sure that is the way it will be?
If rapid climate change does happen and we are taken off guard then, drum roll please, the costs of not planning and pre-positioning solutions could be gigantic and economy busting.
There are many who are unwilling to think about costs today to help benefits of tomorrow. That makes sense in a way. Most people discount the future. There is also a lot of uncertainty about what the future might bring. Uncertainty added to discounting helps produce doubt and procrastination. It also can produce disasters.
Can our leaders afford to neglect the very thinking that is needed to decide whether we need to plan now or not? No. Can they dismiss their responsibilities to inform and lead their people to a better future? Yes, but then how will the future generations see them if all of this goes rather badly? Leadership is not easy. Making mistakes in extremely uncertain and heavily discounted environments can be more likely than in other environments given the incentives presented to most leaders. However, those mistakes can carry massive costs.
Repairing those mistakes can be very difficult. We need to know what we are heading towards. If it is smooth sailing with some windy parts then better. We can adjust slowly as the winds change. If it is going to be a very stormy ride then we have to set different sails and maybe toss out a couple of sea anchors. If the winds will change sharply and without warning then we had better have excellent captains and crews ready to get us through. We will also need to build in flexible and smart energy, transport, educational, military, diplomatic, agricultural, industrial, invention, innovation, leadership, creativity, government and other systems in many places. Otherwise we could be in for a very rough ride with the sails too tight and the lines wound around the winches in the wrong ways.
Principal
Stratus Consulting
said: On 11/11/2009
Following much of the discussion on governments’ role in supporting adaptation, one can get the sense that all governments need to do is provide information and funding. To be sure, information on how climate can or will change and on vulnerability is needed to support adaptation decision-making. In addition, many adaptations cannot be put in place without funding. This may be particularly the case in developing countries as well as in poor communities in developed countries. But, information and financing by governments alone will likely not be sufficient to support adaptation. For adaptation to work, more will be required from governments. Among the elements of government supported adaptation are the following:
1. Clear leadership. Where governments have organized to address adaptation, strong leadership has been exerted. This leadership often comes from the Chief Executive who lays out a clear need for the government he or she heads to address adaptation.
2. Government organization. Adaptation will require response and coordination across many government agencies and departments. Departments or ministries of natural resources, the environment, water resources, forestry, agriculture, transportation, tourism, and development are among those that need to be involved in adaptation. One thing that may not be needed is the creation of a new department of adaptation. Instead, it is better to have existing agencies and ministries mainstream adaptation. Clear lines of authority within the government are required. In some cases, this means coordinating adaptation in the Office of the Chief Executive. In other cases, a lead agency can coordinate activities across the government. Either way, some organization and individual(s) need to be in charge.
3. Strategic planning. Agencies and the government ought to look comprehensively across programs and policies to identify those that are or will be affected by climate change. This analysis should identify barriers to adaptation and measures to enable or promote adaptation. Plans should be updated regularly to reflect lessons learned and changing conditions. In many cases, strategic planning will require extensive coordination across agencies and ministries as well as across different levels of government (e.g., national, provincial, local). Planning by sector will be very helpful to promote coordination.
4. Stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder involvement in policy development and implementation is needed to ensure that adaptation policies are designed to meet the needs of those affected by climate change and to promote stakeholder buy-in to the policies. Policies developed absent stakeholder involvement might not promote buy-in and could produce impractical options that stakeholders cannot realistically implement.
5. Information. Climate change and its impacts need to be monitored and such information should be provided in a timely and useful manner to decision-makers. In addition, information on climate change projections needs to made available to decision-makers in an accessible and useful manner. However, we need to recognize that precise forecasts of future climate changes are currently not available are highly unlikely to become available in the near future. Anticipating future changes in climate requires accounting for a range of potential changes in climate. So, support for use of decision analysis techniques such as risk management needs to be provided.
6. Funding. Many adaptations will require funding for new infrastructure, relocation, new technologies, and other expenses. Recent studies suggest that the total costs of adaptation could be around a hundred billion dollars a year or more within several decades. New funding may be needed to supplement existing activities. Note that many adaptations will be undertaken for climate change and non-climate change reasons. It may be futile to try to completely split funding into adaptation and other (such as development) sources of funding. However it is done, it is critical that funding to support adaptation be provided in a timely manner and reach those who need it and can use it.
7. Technology. Development and diffusion of new technologies and management practices will be important to many adaptation efforts. Technologies such as water conservation or purification techniques, new crop varieties, and improved techniques for managing floods and droughts can help save lives, protect property, and reduce costs of adaptation. To be sure, a lot of know-how on adaptation already exists and barriers such as lack of funding or inadequate government organization must be overcome to make it feasible to transfer and adopt new technologies.
8. Research. There are many aspects of adaptation that are not sufficiently understood, such as how people respond to a changing climate. Adaptation research is needed to understand not just what society needs to adapt to, but how societies adapt, in order to better understand what conditions, incentives, and information promote or impede adaptation.
In summary, a government lead effort on adaptation should contain many if not all of these elements. It is important therefore that governments take a comprehensive approach when developing adaptation strategies.
Chair
Spanish Committee on Global Change Research, CEICAG
said: On 11/11/2009
Society as a whole is already mitigating and adapting to climate change, but more is needed to be done and faster. Specifically, the following strategies should be emphasized:
- More stringent policies in order to change to renewable energy and decreasing energy consumption and other basis resources. In addition to economic and technological policies on the issue, more work to change our life model and life style should be developed. Four areas should be developed more rigorously that it is usually done:
o Information: accurate and focused to the diverse social groups in society: politicians, media, academics, social leaders, teachers, students…
o Communication: in order to be effective, information should be designed as a feed back process, to communicate properly. It should be both a top-down and a bottom-up process.
o Public participation: the best way to involve people in learning and acting is through participation in projects to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In order to be effective, public participation must have channels to carry it out, and it should be well and democratically organized.
o Sociological research: as there is technology to fight climate change and more is been developed, it is needed both to widely use it and to change our life style. To have a comprehensive and rigorous knowledge of the barriers and opportunities for such a social change is a key to fight climate change.
- There is an increasing awareness in society about climate change, but most people do not make the necessary connection between their daily activities and the negative impact on climate change. More research and work need to be done on such connections.
Head of Institute for Environmental Science
University of Geneva
said: On 16/11/2009
Addressing adaptation issues requires inter alia appropriate approaches to education and awareness-raising. Society can adapt if it has the relevant information to do so, as adaptation strategies will vary according to geographical location, access to technology, etc. Awareness-raising needs to clearly highlight that individual action (for example, switching to low-consumption equipment in homes, favouring public transportation over individual transport, etc.) is one of numerous adaptation measures that need to be implemented in parallel with larger-scale measures involving governments and industry (particularly the energy sector). It is also necessary to emphasize that addressing climatic change does not necessarily imply a regression of our societies, but can actually represent new opportunities for the economy (implementation of new technologies in the energy, transportation and agricultural sectors, for example) and thus for employment. Providing a positive message may help individuals and enterprises to adhere more readily to climate adaptation measures.
Research Fellow
Energy Technology Innovation Policy Group Harvard Kennedy School of Government
said: On 20/11/2009
Rapid climate change can display large parts of society periodically or permanently across country’s borders. The migration of farmers in Burkina Faso is a prime example of this. Any movement of large groups of migrants into another country will bring about resentment with the local inhabitants. Their resentment is often based on two assumptions: 1) migrants will take their jobs and 2) migrants will profit from the taxes that local inhabitants paid to build up the infrastructure and services in their country.
From an economic perspective, the only resolution to this problem is to increase economic growth to create more jobs. However, economic growth is not compatible with reducing the risks of climate change. Therefore, society should change to a different model. Firstly, tax systems should be changed towards a system that is not based on a percentage of people’s income but is instead based on providing merits to society. In other words, people will have to contribute physically to provide services for the global good. Secondly, jobs should be based on the intrinsic value that people have. This way, migrants entering a nation can provide values to a country without replacing the value that local inhabitants provide. Only by fundamentally changing from the ‘economic growth’ paradigm to a society based on providing value one can minimize the possibility for severe upheaval.
Professor
University of Michigan
said: On 24/11/2009
Societies and civilizations have always had to adapt to climate change. As it has gotten warmer and colder, wetter and drier, people have sometimes thrived and expanded their dominion, and at other times have been forced into migrations, dissolution of societies, and death. Until our time, we have only had the ability to respond to changes in the climate, to wonder what will come next. The predictions of global warming based observations and physical climate models offer us a unique and extraordinary opportunity. We know with significant certainty that the surface of the Earth will warm, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. We have evolved to function with a certain set of expectations of, for example, rainfall and snowmelt, the onset of spring, the intensity of summer heat. The changes in the climate will impact our evolved behavior in both expected and unexpected ways.
What are sensible strategies for societal adaptation? There are some obvious answers – we need to decouple our consumption of energy and economic success from burning of fossil fuels with uncontrolled emissions of waste products into the atmosphere, ocean, and land. We need secure and reliable sources of energy and water. These are enormous challenges in a world of more than six billion people even without the prospect of global warming.
The accepted definition of adaptation to global warming is what do we do in response to the consequences of a warming planet? How do we react in the face of sea level rise and the alteration of availability and scarcity of water? We can imagine sea walls, dikes and levees, dams, tunnels and canals, and these will be required. Real upheaval comes, however, from people and governments. Bangladesh faces displacement of people due to sea level rise and larger storm surges. This is in a crowded country that cannot absorb this disruption into the interior. Bangladesh relies on the flow of fresh water from the high Himalaya, where rain and snow and snow melt will, with confidence, change. The head waters of the rivers that supply Bangladesh its water are not in Bangladesh; they are in larger, wealthier neighboring countries. Adaptation is as much issues of diplomacy, policy, and management as it is a technological and engineering problem.
To avoid serious upheaval, we must use the knowledge that we have extracted from the study of climate, anticipate change, and find policies and practices that advance development at the same time as accommodating adaptation to climate change. Development activities often address existing problems of water management, water policy, and land use. Climate change exacerbates existing problems, and global warming might push things to crisis and upheaval. Aligning policy, practices, and the development of infrastructure to anticipate the impacts of global warming, to assure the availability of water, and to prepare for the disruption and displacement of coastal populations, all are critical if we are to minimize severe upheaval from rapid global warming.
Professor
Yildiz Technical University
said: On 24/11/2009
The project is about how society must adapt to rapid climate change to minimise severe upheaval. However, I think and suggest considering the question under two different perspectives: one is about adaptation of the society and the other is about adapting the rapid climate change for society. Why?
Let me ask first whether adapting the society is necessary for any purpose or is not? If you do not want any upheaval at the society for some reason then you should minimise the difficulties in their lives to provide benefits to help continuing their lives without pushing them in trouble.
Does it necessary adapting the society for any purpose? I cannot recommend anything like this to any sub-society governing the society. Because all the issues related to change must be redirected to bring the beneficials to humans. How can this do? Let us think first about the back to the present times. The change in climate at present days is not the first as you know. The climate changed several but a few times in the past days of the world. All the things; i.e., humans, animals, plants adapted theirselves to continue their society in well conditions as what they could in a self-control process. The situation will not be different from the previous stages of the phenomenon; however, the knowledge state of present days brings to put the results of some specific discussions for offering to society on be-half of humanitarian point of views to survive them from the negative efects of climate change. How could this results be obtained? Of course educating the society to help them discovering the useful sides of climate change before the serious results are experienced. Aren’t there useful sides of climate change? Of course there are. The knowledge about what they are and how they can be earned depends on the expectations of the society from theirselves future. However, the humanitarian expectations should be corresponded firstly, instead of the espectations of society. Therefore, the simple answer to the question of the project on the energy challenges and political and economical consequences of climate change must be same with the answer about expactations of humans from the future on the Earth. So, this answer must be discussed first and then the results must be applied for training of the society.
The scientific side of the phenomenon must be touched to get the correct answer. The changing the climate of the worldself is a self control. It means the climate change is a control mechanism of the natural phenomena on the Earth. Therefore, the change must be reversed at a time in the future, but I may predict it will not take a long time and it will not be enough to effect the natural balance of the compact system related to whole of the world.
May we control the climate change? The answer is not negative, but, if we want to control the global climate change we may do this only from out of the world. Why? Because, whole of the Earth is a single compact system; i.e., like a living body, according to my studies and results of my projects. Therefore, everything, what we do, will effect the global climate even if we do not want.
Well. What is the change of climate? Let us think on the thing, which changes, from the scientific point of view a little. In fact, the thing is the energy. This means the change of climate is a part of a change in energy state. What does the science say if an energy state changes? The answer is simple. Every change at the state of an energy form generates either an energy form and/or a matter. So, there is a useful thing in our hands. If we use this fact for humanitarian purposes then why does the society demonstrate any uphealing?
What are the standart needs of society? We may count the good health, good food, and good education at head, but not average or minimum of them. These needs must be provided in good conditions in any situation for whole humans at the world. Without these conditions of well-possedness cancelling of any reaction can not be succeeded in any case.
There is another side of climate change: animals and plants. Their societies will be effected from the climate change, too, not only the society of human. Unfortunately, as a result, their society will do something, too.
I recommend that the well-possed scientists should discuss the phenomenon from every possible points of views involving all of the perspectives in the phenomenon and offer a scientific but compact result to the society rapidly. Why? Because, even if a little but incorrect adaptation process is applied then the result may be a catastrof for the human. This reason is related to the characteristic of the analytical problem connected with the question of the project: the solution of touched problem is possible by solving a scientific problem called inverse problem and as it is known such problems have not single solution. There are more than one answer, but only one of them is real and there is not a scientific criteria, yet, to point which answer is correct.
Director
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
said: On 29/11/2009
By trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, states like Illinois could experience more extreme heat, longer droughts, severe storms and floods, and damage to farmland and the crops that farmers grow. In fact, intense rains and floods are already occurring far more frequently than they did just a few decades ago. To help stop global warming, Illinois is making the transition to a clean energy economy by investing in renewable energy like wind and solar, energy saving technologies, clean coal technology and high-speed trains. While it is critical that we take these steps to cut our greenhouse gas emissions, we know that we must plan now to prepare for the affects of global warming. That’s why Illinois is working to protect vulnerable ecosystems, conserve our fresh water resources and prepare for heat emergencies to minimize the harm that global warming can cause.
Illinois began tackling the climate crisis in 2007 when the Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group (ICCAG) appointed by the Governor recommend strategies that would achieve a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Illinois to 1990 levels by 2020. The highly inclusive and transparent ICCAG process included representatives from business, labor and environmental organizations, as well as local government officials, consumers, scientists, faith-based groups, agriculture, utilities, power generators, auto manufacturing, construction equipment, oil, insurance and waste management.
These stakeholders recommend a wide range of greenhouse reduction policies including, for example: renewable energy and energy efficiency standards; smart growth incentives and expanding mass transit, passenger and freight rail upgrades; adopting a low-carbon fuels standard; incentives to encourage small renewable distributed electricity generation; tighter energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment; enhanced residential and commercial energy efficiency construction codes; reforestation, tree and grassplanting; expanded use of no-till farming; capturing methane from coal mines, landfills, livestock farms and wastewater treatment plants; and, increasing recycling rates, among other strategies.
Compared to taking no action to address climate change, taken together these strategies would benefit the Illinois economy by cutting electricity costs by more than $3 billion by 2020 as well as boosting the gross state product and personal disposable income by billions of dollars while creating tens of thousands of new jobs. In addition, a cap-and-trade program could generate millions of dollars in revenue to support energy efficiency and other carbon reduction investments.
The work of the ICCAG became a benchmark for Illinois’ participation as one of the six heartland states—along with the Canadian province of Manitoba—to sign the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord (MGA) on November 15, 2007. After two years of work involving stakeholders from across the region, this effort to design a regional cap and trade program for the Midwest is now nearly complete. MGA states are now discussing how the Midwestern cap and trade program could link with other regional GHG reduction programs on the east and west coasts. Together, these linked regional efforts could create a viable national cap and trade program should congress fail to adopt a national cap and trade program.
Illinois state government is also acting to reduce its own carbon footprint by becoming only the second state, after New Mexico, to join the Chicago Climate Exchange and pledge GHG emission reductions from state buildings and vehicle fleets. Illinois was also one of the founding members of the Climate Registry, a national non-profit voluntary greenhouse gas reporting organization that provides a standardized and centralized high quality method for companies and governments to calculate, verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions. More than 350 members have joined the forty-one states, twelve Canadian provinces, six Mexican states and four Native American tribes in establishing The Climate Registry as a national framework for reporting GHG emissions.
Illinois has taken aggressive action at the state level to reduce GHGs through policies that will accelerate the transition to a lower carbon economy. In 2007, Illinois adopted a renewable energy standard that requires utilities to supply at least 25 percent of their power from wind and other renewable energy sources by 2025. And, the state is now powering more than 150 state facilities in the state capitol with 100% wind power. Illinois is quickly becoming a leader in investing in energy saving technologies through our Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard that requires utilities to meet 2% of their customers’ electricity needs through energy savings by 2015. This requirement is now generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment in energy saving equipment in homes and businesses.
One of the more innovative strategies to reduce greenhouse gases is the development of a pipeline to help capture carbon dioxide emissions from new coal gasification plants and use the CO2 to extract additional oil from otherwise depleted oil wells. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permitted one of the first carbon sequestration efforts for an industrial facility in the nation and previously permitted a coal gasification plant with carbon sequestration capabilities. These projects could help Illinois utilities meet their requirement under a unique new Illinois law to provide 5% of their power from clean coal facilities that capture and store their CO2 emissions. These efforts compliment FutureGen, a near-zero-emission coal plant that the U.S. Department of Energy plans to build in partnership with the energy industry in central Illinois. This project will demonstrate how coal can be used in an environmentally responsible manner to generate power by capturing and storing carbon dioxide underground in deep saline aquifers.
Illinois is also helping the agricultural sector to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through the Illinois Conservation Climate Initiative. This program encourages farmers and other landowners to adopt conservation practices such as no-till farming, reforestation and using methane digesters in livestock operations to help reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions. These carbon reduction activities generate carbon offset credits that can then be sold on the Chicago Climate Exchange to large companies, municipalities and other institutions that have made a voluntary commitment to reduce their GHG emissions. These conservation practices store carbon in the soil and plants that would otherwise be emitted as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
President Obama’s administration has provided new optimism that not only will there now be a serious national policy to address climate change, but there will also be a significant role and flexibility for the states. Illinois hopes to continue to play a major role in collaborating with other states to shape federal legislation or regulation as we move toward a possible federal cap and trade system. Even if such a system is adopted, as we hope it is, states will need to continue to play a significant role in its implementation.
Secretary of State
Ministry of Environment Cambodia
said: On 30/11/2009
Climate change has caused adverse impacts on Cambodia’s society in several sectors including: agriculture, forestry, human health and coastal zone. However, the adaptation strategies have been identified to address such impacts in those sectors.
a. Agriculture
Adaptation options that have been identified for increasing rice productivity under changing climate are the following:
• Improvement of genetic or development of new high yielding varieties;
• Improvement of crop management and cultural practices;
• Development of capacity to adapt to current extreme climate such as development of early warning system to extreme climate, development maps showing the provinces of rice growing areas prone to flood and drought;
• Development of irrigation facilities in many parts of low land areas;
• Increasing planting index in suitable areas; and
• Diversification of foods.
b. Forestry
• Forest Plantation Establishment;
• Conservation of Protected Areas; and
• Improvement of Forest Resource Management.
c. Human Health
• Utilization of treated mosquito nets by communities living in high risk areas to control the vectors;
• Strengthening program management and supervisory practices;
• Increasing funds for the provision of mosquito nets and insecticides;
• Awareness raising on Information, Education and Communication (IEC) programs for health; such as increasing community understanding on the most critical causes of disease- watercourses and containers where mosquitoes’ breed;
• Introduce low cost preventative methods such as improvement of personal hygiene and surrounding environments by destroying the insect breeding sites; and
• Promote the use of bed nets in malaria-prone areas
d. Coastal Zone
Possible measures for consideration include:
• Develop a national strategic response to sea level rise for the coastal areas; and
• Investigate further potential impacts of sea level rise on bio-geophysical, socio-economy, marine resources, freshwater, infrastructure, human settlements, and agricultural production;
Managing Director Concept & Technical advisor
New World Concepts P/L
said: On 13/01/2010
This is a loaded question in that, adaption must always be equal to any influence of change experienced.
As such its difficult to predict the ensuing changes we may or may not pay witness to.
If what is happening at present is anything to go by (and I don’t think it is) we will soon see more human displacement on unprecedented levels, how will this be dealt with on a global scale, are we going to incarcerate two thirds of the entire human population over the next 40 or so years. This is one of thousands of questions that will need to be answered.
We must become cooperative instead of competitive, we must become sustainable in all pursuits (zero impact or extremely minimum, green cities, diversified energy production, relaxed boarders (if borders were relaxed tyrannical rule would end) and there is a complete rave on other changes required to achieve the needed assimilation for worst case scenario survival.
Personally I feel we have used up the viability or beneficial increment of our current systems of control and trade.
As with all systems, our current systems have a viable use by timeframe in which at some point they (each and every micro system within the big picture system) will become detrimental to the whole, and or start behaving in a way that will create the opposite of what things were set up to achieve. (all systems will in some way eventually evolve to a point of polar opposites.
At the point where 65% of the total input is used to run a system, maintenance and survival of the system its self becomes the priority.
We have stuff galore, and we have found no lasting joy from it, we all need to look deep and long at our self’s each and every one of us, if we can achieve this one thing then and only then will we as a species step forward into a new world.