Who: Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency
When: 2040-2050
Background: Despite the global economic slump, greenhouse gas emissions still climbed to their highest recorded levels in history last year, according to International Energy Agency data. In this context, it defies imagining how human civilization could realistically reform itself toward true sustainability.
Why Great: As Birol pointed out, a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures would spark massive disruptions that would affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
BUT… Birol added that it is still not too late. If the international community undertakes radical change right now, it could yet dodge the direst after-effects.
Bottom Line: Radical action on a global scale is an unlikely scenario no matter what the issue at hand may be, least of all climate change. Birol is sounding a bleak tone, but only because he is trying to be realistic.
Source: Harvey, Fiona. “Worst Ever Carbon Emissions Leave Climate on the Brink.” The Guardian. May 29, 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower)
Who: President Mohamed Nasheed, in an interview with Utne Reader and Momentum magazine.
Background: Climate change threatens to raise sea levels by 1.5 meters during the twenty-first century, which causes President Nasheed alarm since that is his tourism-dependent island nation’s average altitude.
Why Great: The fact that a political leader has taken notice of a major threat should be heartening. Already, Nasheed notes, the Maldives suffer from other effects of climate change, such as coastal erosion. His government is looking for solutions that are appropriate to the economy (building huge sea walls is out, since it would spoil tourists’ views), and has announced a goal of becoming “carbon neutral” by 2020.
BUT… The Maldives is extremely energy insecure and heavily dependent on imported oil, making it economically vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices. A goal of transitioning rapidly to 80% renewable energy without increasing electricity prices is ambitious, to say the least.
Bottom Line: Global problems beg global solutions. Said Nasheed: “The Maldives will continue to plan for adaptation with the modest income that we have and we will work with reliable partners that have already provided us help, such as Denmark. If we are given further international assistance, then all well and good, but we are not holding our breath.”
Source: Mary Hoff on the Utne Blogs http://www.utne.com/Environment/President-of-Maldives-Keeps-His-Head-Above-Water.aspx
Who: George Monbiot, ecology writer and author
Why Great: Monbiot’s observations cast a cynical pall over most of the existing international accords on greenhouse-gas emissions. The implication is that decades from now, industrialized nations will tout on paper that they have achieved major reductions even while actual emissions continue to climb and the planet’s biosystem continues to alter.
BUT… None of this is a foregone conclusion. China and other developing nations are voicing greater environmental concern now than they did 10 or 15 years ago. If their new green consciousness really takes hold and translates to major action on curbing emissions — as it did in Europe and North America decades ago — than catastrophe can be averted, in reality and on paper both.
Bottom Line: Environmental conservationists may have to become a more effective political force at the international level, not just at the local or national level. Those who are concerned for the Earth’s well-being will need to hold public officials across the globe accountable for achieving tangible progress against climate change and other human-caused environmental ills.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/pollution-developing-world-emissions
Who: Miguel B. Araújo et al., a team of European biodiversity and ecology researchers
Background: Sanctuaries are not preparing for climate change, according to a team of European biodiversity researchers. “The models predict that towards the end of the twenty-first century, some 58% of Europe’s terrestrial vertebrates and plants may no longer have suitable climatic conditions to survive in the protected areas of each country”, says Miguel B. Araújo, lead author and researcher in the department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology at Spain’s National Natural History Museum.
Why Great: The researchers have learned that higher altitudes offer greater protection against climate change, while Europe’s Red Natura 2000 network is so vulnerable that it would lose more species than unprotected areas.
BUT… Even in higher altitudes such as in Scandinavia, species will become vulnerable. Climate change will bring warmer temperatures to the extreme north, shrinking the habitats of cold-tolerant species.
Bottom Line: The researchers urge conservationists to focus on making protective habitats more resilient to climate change and to integrate the protected and unprotected natural environments to make dispersion of local species easier when habitats become intolerable.
Source: Miguel B. Araújo, Diogo Alagador, Mar Cabeza,; David Nogués-Bravo, and Wilfried Thuiller, “Climate change threatens European conservation areas,” Ecology Letters 14(5): 484-492, May 2011. (via PlatformaSINC, a science and information news service based in Madrid)
Who: The International Energy Agency
Why Great: The report is strikingly, if dismally, honest in its assessment. According to the IEA, there is little chance of achieving the ambitious goal set during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2010 to limit the global increase in temperature to 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) or less over the next ten years. In order to meet that goal, the percent increase in emissions from now until 2020 must be less than the percent increase that occurred between 2009 and 2010.
BUT… Because the increase in emissions was directly linked to the global economy’s emergence from recession, a double dip would send emissions back down.
Bottom Line: Climate, meet change.
Source: http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
Who: National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory
Why: So far in earth’s history, periods of reduced solar activity have almost always instigated prolonged cooling of earth’s climate. Some even brought on ice ages. This cooling could be a good thing if it is steep enough to offset some of earth’s global warming. Of course, if it is too strong, then it could introduce a whole new set of problems. At the very least, it will require space satellites and telecommunications systems to reconfigure many of their settings, since they are impacted by solar output.
BUT… The observation measurements could be wrong, and the cooling might not happen at all. Or it could happen but have minimal effects on earth’s climate.
Bottom Line: We are dealing with a lot of unknowns here. They will clear up soon enough, though.
Source: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-sun-major-solar.html
Who: International Programme on the State of the Ocean (a three-day workshop, convened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. It brought together 27 researchers from 18 nations.)
Why Great: It would be a tragedy to lose so many species of fish, coral, aquatic mammals, and other cherished wildlife, not only for their sakes, but for humans who depend upon the oceans for their livelihoods, as well — as the report’s authors explicitly state, fishing and maritime industries, large and small, across the globe, could be driven out of business.
BUT… The world community can avert this massive loss of life, the report states, through concerted international action to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions, rescue endangered oceanic ecosystems, and protect the oceans’ health on a global scale.
Bottom Line: Concerted international action has generated only lackluster progress so far on averting global warming. Why expect them to be any more effective at monitoring the earth’s oceans? The future may be bright for a few oceanic ecosystems, thanks to local conservationists who are pulling as much weight as they can, and certain individual nations that are making exemplary progress. But for the oceans as a whole, things will probably have to get much worse before they get better.
Source: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
Who: James Hansen, NASA climatologist
Background: Alberta’s soil holds reservoirs of bitumen, a hardened form of petroleum. With the prices of Middle East oil soaring, Canada and the United States have been rushing to build drills, pipelines, and other infrastructure to capture this oil alternative. All this activity bodes ill for global climate. Hansen warns that an atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration of 350 parts per million would alter the climate enough to significantly harm life across the planet. At present, we are at 390 parts per million. Canada has enough bitumen that, were it all burned in one day, it would raise the atmospheric concentration to 600 parts per million. Clearly, the burning will take place gradually, but that only means that that it will push humanity’s carbon footprint upward over the long term.
Why Great: Earth’s atmosphere suffers enough from China and the United States’ massive carbon footprints. It would be a disastrous development if Canada, too, became a globally significant carbon emitter.
BUT… There is always hope that environmental awareness will prevail. The Canadian and U.S. governments both make job creation their top priority, not conservation, but this may gradually change after the pangs of the economic recession fully subside. Also, as the article notes, Brazil has been making remarkable progress in reducing its carbon emissions, even as Canada and the United States have been increasing theirs. Perhaps aggressive conservation in other parts of the world could offset the climate recklessness of North America.
Bottom Line: By pursuing economic growth instead of environmental well-being, Canada and the United States may ultimately forfeit both.
Source: Reported on Climate Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/29/256025/brazil-rainforest-canada-tar-sands/#more-256025
Who: Gary McManus, associate state climatologist for Oklahoma government
Background: Extreme weather patterns of all kinds have been occurring more and more frequently since 1980, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. McManus’s home state has borne more than its share of it. In this year alone, Oklahoma has set more climate records than the climatologist would care to count (even though it’s his job): lowest-ever temperature (-31 degrees Fahrenheit), highest 24-hour snowfall (27 inches), and the most tornadoes in one month (50 in April 2011), to name just a few. Climatologists say that its human civilization’s indirect influence on earth’s climate patterns that is behind all this.
Why Great: Extreme weather kills people. Just ask the New Orleans residents who witnessed Hurricane Katrina. It devastates the livelihoods of others, as any farmer in monsoon-prone India will surely tell you. Deaths, famines, poor health, and homelessness will run rampant across the globe if climatologists’ warnings prove true.
BUT… This prevalence of harsh weather might be just the kick in the teeth that humanity needs to take aggressive action to stop polluting and climate-altering behavior. Climate deniers can quarrel with climate scientists all they want about the hypotheticals of tree rings, ice cores, and hockey sticks. But there is no denying the tornadoes that have obliterated your neighborhood, the monsoon that has destroyed your farm fields, or the cold spell that is claiming the lives of homeless people all across your city. People will realize the depth of the problem and demand that their leaders finally act.
Bottom Line: We’re in for nasty weather, no doubt about it. But the sun will shine again — in measured, manageable quantities, that is — if we act objectively and decisively in the face of the storms.
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-extreme-weather-20110824,0,940647.story
Who: Two French organizations, the National Institute for Agricultural Research and the Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development, in the joint report “Agrimonde1.”
Why Great: A report that finds there are viable ways to end world hunger is good news indeed. Also, the organizations report that Africa’s agricultural productivity doubled between 1961 and 2003. However, agricultural productivity ether doubled or tripled in other continents as well. Thus, agricultural productivity in Africa is still the lowest in the world.
BUT… Many looming questions remain as to how best to address food shortages in a way that is sustainable over the long term.
Bottom Line: The report examines two possible scenarios. The first emphasizes economic growth over environmental concerns and necessitates an 80% increase in agricultural production. The second takes global ecology into account, and requires only a 30% increase in agricultural production while necessitating a cutback in overall food consumption in developed countries. Subsequent reports will look more closely at other issues, such as changing standards of living, climate change, and land usage.
Source: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110112/full/news.2011.14.html
Who: National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Background: NCAR’s computer climate models forecast that even if temperatures keep rising, Arctic summer sea ice will stop its shrinkage and might even expand over the next 10 years. After that, however, warming will gain the upper hand. The Arctic summers will be mostly ice-free by 2070.
Why Great: Wait until the climate-change deniers get hold of this. Arctic ice sheets holding steady and even growing — see for yourselves, the planet is doing just fine; nope, no warming problem here! More science-deficient consumers and their public officials will listen, and the already-sluggish global efforts against climate change will grow more sluggish still. Never mind that it is just a temporary blip and that disaster still looms at the end of it. Regular people will not see the problem, and environmental advocates will have an even harder time making it visible to them. Like they didn’t have a hard enough time already.
BUT… A more optimistic way to read this is that the temporary ice surge could buy the Arctic some time. If the world really gets its act together on curbing climate change in the next 10 years, then by the time the Arctic ice melting is supposed to resume, the worst of global warming will have already been averted. In that case, we and the Arctic will both be spared a lot of grief.
Bottom Line: Don’t let the widening ice sheet fool you. The long-term climate change outlook still looks pretty bad.
Source: Discovery News, http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-sea-ice-could-make-comeback-tour-110812.html