With rising inflation, interest rate hikes, banks going under (Again? Haven’t they learned anything?), the war in Ukraine still hot, Republican investigations designed not to uncover the truth but for cynical political capital, the possible arrest of Trump, and still no resolution on the Aaron Rodgers trade, it’s easy to “forget” that there is a “starting point” to all of this, which is life on Earth. No inhabitable planet that took billions of years of evolution to create allegedly intelligent life forms who could destroy it all in a relative millisecond has time for this.
Instead of nationalism, greed and pointless conflict over religion, culture, race and some megalomaniac’s place in the history books (like having an international arrest warrant for war crimes), we should be looking “ahead” and doing something we can all agree on (unless you are a fossil fuel corporation and their political playthings), and that is how to “fix” the planet before it’s too late to do anything about it.
It’s easy to see why it isn’t on top of most people’s to-do list; each day goes by and everything just seems the same, as if change is merely too "incremental" to notice. Well, of course change is all around: old buildings and their old piping get older and rustier, bridges get creakier, roads get crackier—those are things we can actually see, and still it takes seismic events or job-creation schemes to do anything about it.
But to the uninformed, the sky seems limitless in the amount of pollution it can absorb, and garbage landfills and the oceans are conveniently out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Most people prefer to keep their concerns “aspirational” than concrete, although if “green” energy can replace fossil fuels without causing blackouts or pain in the pocketbook, then most people are “for it.” Those who are not are, well, those oil companies and the politicians who are in their pay.
“Change” has to come at some point, but what that means exactly isn’t certain. Is this country and the world going to be caught flatfooted when confronted by the reality that world is no longer the “welcoming” doormat for humanity’s negligence? Will “change” mean people will simply make “adjustments” while still relying on the factors that caused the change in the first place—or will they stop delaying what is needed and make the switch in earnest from fossil fuels? It certainly isn’t clear from those who still think more oil is the “answer” to all our problems and attack green energy activists as “left-wing radicals.”
There does seem to be some changes in climate that do seem to suggest “unnatural” reasons. The famous “snows of Kilimanjaro” are disappearing fast; a few anti-science scientists claim this is a “natural” occurrence starting in the late 19th century, but most scientists would point out that this was the time when the use of greenhouse gas-emitting pollutants began in earnest. Climate change is blamed for the fact that the Great Salt Lake has decreased in size from 3,300 square miles to 950, and the Aral Sea--once one of the largest lakes in the world--has virtually disappeared thanks to a combination of human misuse and drier climate:
At least in the Pacific Northwest, 2021 and 2022 saw mostly below normal temperatures in winter and spring, but followed by record-breaking heatwaves during the summer. After a series of 100+ degree days in 2021 in Seattle, in 2022 we experienced a four-month “endless” summer with almost no rainfall from mid-June into mid-October, with a record high temperature of 88 degrees recorded at Sea-Tac Airport on October 16, the latest in the year that temperatures reached 80+ degrees. Even the Washington Post thought it worth mentioning that the “historic” heat waves experienced in the Pacific Northwest were believed to be “virtually impossible” without significant human impact, according to climatologists.
Since then we have experienced below normal temperatures again this winter and spring, but curiously well below normal precipitation. Not that this isn’t “normal”—we’ve had above normal yearly precipitation for a while, enough to push the previous decade’s “normal” up by 2 inches—so once it a while it will be below the norm to “average” things out. The “long range” outlook this year continues to be cooler than normal into spring, and warmer and drier in the summer.
We have been told that cooler winters and springs are caused by global warming, since it knocks the “polar vortex” off its normal axis and bringing colder weather further south in winter and early spring; but that this will be a short-term occurrence, until there isn’t much polar icecap left to melt. The hotter, drier summers are a better indicator of climate change around these parts.
But is this the beginning of the “end”? The New York Times is telling us that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the future suggests that the “future” is a lot closer than people wish to understand:
Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade, and nations will need to make an immediate and drastic shift away from fossil fuels to prevent the planet from over-heating dangerously beyond that level.
The effect of doing nothing, according to this IPCC graphic, tells us that future generations will spend its entire lifespan in an increasingly hostile “environment” unless something is done:
The IPCC report’s “long” version is beyond the layman’s patience, and the “Approved Summary for Policymakers” isn’t much better. I’ll try to pick out the important bits:
Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals.
Global surface temperature was 1.09°C [0.95°C–1.20°C]5 higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1906, with larger increases over land (1.59°C [1.34°C–1.83°C]) than over the ocean (0.88°C [0.68°C–1.01°C]). Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10]°C higher than 1850-1900. Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years.
The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. Over this period, it is likely that well mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributed a warming of 1.0°C–2.0°C8, and other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C–0.8°C, natural (solar and volcanic) drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.
In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations (410 parts per million) were higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and concentrations of methane (1866 parts per billion) and nitrous oxide (332 parts per billion) were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15–0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1]mm yr-1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr-1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr-1 between 2006 and 2018.
Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since AR5. Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events since the 1950s, including increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts.
Alright, so we know what the problem is and who is causing it. What to do about it?
Several mitigation options, notably solar energy, wind energy, electrification of urban systems, urban green infrastructure, energy efficiency, demand-side management, improved forest and crop/grassland management, and reduced food waste and loss, are technically viable, are becoming increasingly cost effective and are generally supported by the public. From 2010– 2019 there have been sustained decreases in the unit costs of solar energy (85%), wind energy (55%), and lithium ion batteries (85%), and large increases in their deployment, e.g., >10x for solar and >100x for electric vehicles (EVs), varying widely across regions. The mix of policy instruments that reduced costs and stimulated adoption includes public R&D, funding for demonstration and pilot projects, and demand pull instruments such as deployment subsidies to attain scale. Maintaining emission-intensive systems may, in some regions and sectors, be more expensive than transitioning to low emission systems.
Global modelled mitigation pathways reaching net zero CO2 and GHG emissions include transitioning from fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage (CCS) to very low- or zero-carbon energy sources, such as renewables or fossil fuels with CCS, demand-side measures and improving efficiency, reducing non-CO2 GHG emissions, and CDR47. In most global modelled pathways, land-use change and forestry (via reforestation and reduced deforestation) and the energy supply sector reach net zero CO2 emissions earlier than the buildings, industry and transport sectors.
Mitigation options often have synergies with other aspects of sustainable development, but some options can also have trade-offs. There are potential synergies between sustainable development and, for instance, energy efficiency and renewable energy. Similarly, depending on the context48, biological CDR methods like reforestation, improved forest management, soil carbon sequestration, peatland restoration and coastal blue carbon management can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions, employment and local livelihoods. However, afforestation or production of biomass crops can have adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts, including on biodiversity, food and water security, local livelihoods and the rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially if implemented at large scales and where land tenure is insecure. Modelled pathways that assume using resources more efficiently or that shift global development towards sustainability include fewer challenges, such as less dependence on CDR and pressure on land and biodiversity. (high confidence)
Phew. So how much time do we have left to fix it?
The longer emissions reductions are delayed, the fewer effective adaptation options. Deep, rapid, and sustained mitigation and accelerated implementation of adaptation actions in this decade would reduce future losses and damages related to climate change for humans and ecosystem.
The higher the magnitude and the longer the duration of overshoot, the more ecosystems and societies are exposed to greater and more widespread changes in climatic impact-drivers, increasing risks for many natural and human systems. Compared to pathways without overshoot, societies would face higher risks to infrastructure, low-lying coastal settlements, and associated livelihoods. Overshooting 1.5°C will result in irreversible adverse impacts on certain ecosystems with low resilience, such as polar, mountain, and coastal ecosystems, impacted by ice-sheet, glacier melt, or by accelerating and higher committed sea level rise.
Continued emissions will further affect all major climate system components, and many changes will be irreversible on centennial to millennial time scales and become larger with increasing global warming. Without urgent, effective, and equitable mitigation and adaptation actions, climate change increasingly threatens ecosystems, biodiversity, and the livelihoods, health and wellbeing of current and future generations. The illustrative development pathways (red to green) and associated outcomes (right panel) show that there is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all:
A decade to accomplish at least to halt global temperature increases, the continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions and misuse of water resources seems to be a tall order when “aspirations” is what many people can only “accept,” and you have right-wing politicians either denying reality or outright opposing any “mitigation” as not “cost effective” and hurting their corporate puppet-masters’ profit margins.
There should be “high confidence” that by the time climate change is causing the one-two punch of higher fuel and electricity costs for colder winters (in the short term) and hotter temperatures in the summer (long-term)--combined with increasing numbers of, and more damaging, weather-related natural disasters that people will expect the government to pay the cost of--that cluelessness about why this all happened is the typical response. But this would be a ticking time-bomb that everyone was told about, and apparently it was believed it never would explode in their lifetimes.
Well, it would have to "explode" in someone's lifetime, and might as well be ours. If disaster strikes, this is what we should expect to happen when we just
pretend to find it "concerning," but are unwilling to do anything more than as little as possible because it is too "theoretical" to be real, and put our "trust" in the entities who least want to take the responsibility. We just might as well get what we deserve for being so foolish for so long.
No comments:
Post a Comment