Climate Change: A Slow-Motion Tsunami
From reducing greenhouse gas emissions to developing reliable sources of renewable energy, scientists are planning for how to deal with the threats brought on by climate change.
Published March 1, 2005
By Christine Van Lenten
Academy Contributor
Images of the devastation wrought by the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean are still indelible in all our minds. Thus, that imagery suggests itself within the context of climate change, which poses the threat of natural forces altering our planet – albeit much more slowly – in ways that could be destructive to many forms of life, not least our own.
The tsunami was not, of course, caused by climate change. That imagery is facile; that imagery is lurid; we may hope it’s grossly overstated. But it would be a mistake to reject its core significance.
The reasons why, and steps we can take to mitigate and adapt to climate change, were presented by two of the world’s top climate scientists at an event sponsored by the Environmental Sciences Section in December. Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, who chairs the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was the featured speaker.
Dr. James E. Hansen, who directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), served as respondent. Kenneth A. Colburn of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and Karl S. Michael of the New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) lent regional and state perspectives on how governments and the marketplace are – and aren’t – responding to the challenge of reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are driving global warming.
Give Carbon a Market Value
This quartet of insiders spoke against a backdrop of major events. Pachauri and Colburn were en route to Buenos Aires for the tenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which produced the Kyoto Protocol. On January 1, 2005, the EU market for trading carbon emissions would be launched. That, along with implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in February, would, Colburn predicted, give carbon a market value, and “that will change everything.”
But will change come soon enough to transform a destructively carbon-intensive world into one in which current generations can meet their basic needs without impairing future generations’ ability to meet theirs?
A Monster Problem
Created in 1988 by the UN Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Society, the IPCC has enlisted scientists and other experts around the globe in shaping and advancing a new body of knowledge about a monster problem of unparalleled complexity. As climate change has evolved from an obscure topic to the mother of all fields, the IPCC has earned and maintained wide respect.
Central to its success are its methods: it proceeds by way of assessments of peer-reviewed, published literature, largely by consensus, and transparently. Central to its methods is the design of scenarios that project a range of future GHG emission levels and resulting physical effects. The scenarios rest on assumptions about energy use, population, and economic activity. Much turns on them: the higher the forecasts, the more urgent the problem, the greater the pressures to act.
Inevitably the scenarios are challenged. “One welcomes debate,” said Pachauri. “But there should be a healthy and objective debate.” The IPCC scenarios have been subjected to “a systematic attack” charging that forecasts are too high because methods are flawed. That attack is unfounded, Pachauri contended, and the IPCC has been responding to it. A natural resource economist, he presented the IPCC’s case. In short, the IPCC relies on capable economists who draw from mainstream sources and employ mainstream methods. Critics who say the IPCC exaggerates future emission levels are “not at all correct.”
Dangerous Trends
What has the IPCC learned? The evidence Pachauri cited that human-induced climate change is already under way is by now familiar and widely accepted: temperatures are rising, glaciers are retreating, snow cover is diminishing, droughts are more frequent and severe. The November 2004 Arctic Impact Assessment reports that the Arctic is warming much faster than anticipated.
Of the GHGs driving climate change, CO2 is by far the worst offender. By 1999 its concentration in the atmosphere had increased 31% since the industrial revolution – to a level perhaps not exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not in the past 20 million. It’s expected that fossil fuel burning will continue to drive CO2 emissions during the 21st century. In IPCC model runs, the global averaged surface temperature increases from 1.4o to 5.8oC, from 1990 to the end of the 21st century. Wintertime temperatures could rise, particularly in northern latitudes. Globally, average water vapor, evaporation, and precipitation could increase, though effects could vary regionally. Sea levels could rise by 0.09 to 0.88 meters.
Complicating the picture is the complexity of the interacting climate, ecological, and socioeconomic systems that are in play, with their feedback loops and indirect as well as direct effects. With systems of such complexity and temperature changes of such magnitude, effects won’t necessarily be linear: there will be discontinuities; there could be abrupt changes; impacts could be severe. Because of the inertia of the climate system, some impacts may only slowly become apparent. Some, Pachauri observed, could continue for decades, centuries, millennia. Some could be irreversible if certain thresholds, not yet understood, are crossed.
The Potential Damage
Large uncertainties are associated with IPCC projections; for example, assumptions about economic growth, technology, and substitutions among different forms of energy. But if by the end of this century we end up in the upper end of the ranges forecast, Pachauri cautioned, “the world is in trouble.”
In sketching the likely impacts of climate change, Pachauri drew from the IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report. (The fourth is due in 2007.) Damage could result from changes in precipitation patterns that impact fresh water and food supplies, he said. Growth in crop yields has already slowed due to factors not related to climate; yields could fall. Demand for irrigation water will rise, aggravating scarcities. Water quality will decline. Competition for water is already growing.
Developing countries and the poor in all countries will be hardest hit. A half-billion people in the Indian subcontinent depend for the bulk of their water supply on snow melt from the Himalayas, now threatened. Two-thirds of India’s population lives in rural areas where much farming depends entirely on rain-fed agriculture. Without adequate rainwater, soil conditions will deteriorate; poverty will worsen. Food prices will rise for everyone; huge demand for agricultural products will threaten food security for the entire world. Other likely effects are no less alarming:
– Sea levels will rise as polar ice caps continue to melt and as heat expands water; coastal regions and islands will be inundated.
– Heat waves will kill people.
– Rates of infectious and heat-related respiratory diseases will rise.
– Economies will be dislocated; sustainable development, thwarted.
– All forms of life (so exquisitely temperature-dependent) will be affected, with far-reaching ecological consequences.
Energy Efficiency is Key
Even after levels of CO2 are stabilized, temperatures will continue to rise before they eventually stabilize. Sea levels will continue to rise for much longer. The longer we delay acting, the worse the impacts, the longer they’ll last, the harder it will be to mitigate them.
Stabilizing climate will require a broad range of actions that address not only CO2 but also other climate forcing agents including methane, trace gases, and black carbon (soot) aerosols, according to Jim Hansen, whose research into climate change goes back decades. His congressional testimony in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of climate change issues.
IPCC business-as-usual scenarios are unrealistically pessimistic, in his opinion; he says a realistic description of CO2 emissions growth is 1.4% per year. However, “I’m more pessimistic than IPCC analyses” with regard to how fast large ice sheets may disintegrate. In order to avoid climate problems, he argues, CO2 emissions need to level off during the next few decades and then decline with the help of new technologies.
But the U.S. Department of Energy projects continued growth in CO2 emissions and energy needs over the next several decades. Who are the biggest U.S. energy consumers? Industrial uses have been fairly constant; the greatest growth is in transportation. Indeed, CO2 emissions from transportation now exceed those from industry. “If you want to flatten out the use of energy, you need to address transportation,” Hansen said.
Within the transportation sector, the lion’s share of emissions comes from automobiles and “light trucks,” a category that includes SUVs, pick-ups, and vans. Growth in emissions comes primarily from light trucks. With gasoline at $2 per gallon, a conservative 4.8 mpg increase in efficiency for light trucks and a 2.8 mpg increase for automobiles would pay for themselves through decreased fuel usage.
Other Measures; Other Means
Implementing this by 2015, Hansen advised, would save, by 2030, more than 3 million barrels of oil each day; integrated over 35 years, four times the amount of oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. A moderate scenario – more modest than what’s possible with existing technology – would save, by 2030, seven times what’s in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. “If you go further it would be possible to get an absolute decrease [in emissions]…So the possibilities of avoiding large climate change are there technologically. We just have to get serious” – and act.
As Pachauri observed, climate change poses equity issues. To date, developed nations have added the largest share of human-generated GHGs to the atmosphere; they hold the most GHG “debt.” Should developing nations have a chance to “catch up?” Who should bear the burden of reducing GHG emissions?
Along with acting to mitigate climate change, we can adapt to it, Pachauri explained, by such measures as developing drought- and salt-tolerant crops; by developing better water-conservation practices and technologies for conserving and desalinating water; by reducing the enormous inefficiencies in the biomass cycle, the developing world’s major form of energy.
But technology isn’t just a mere fix. “You have to create the policy framework, the social conditions by which technology will be developed and used. We need to redefine technology-related priorities within a global framework.” Toward this end, social scientists’ rigorous analyses of the impacts of climate change are essential. Political implications, too, which tend to be viewed only in terms of negotiating positions, should be examined within an objective academic framework, Pachauri urged.
What Will It Cost?
And economic issues must be squarely addressed: beliefs that slowing climate change will be costly are “fallacious,” Pachauri stated. The IPCC found that reducing CO2 concentrations to a reasonable 450 ppm by 2050 would reduce global GDP by only about 4%. Essentially, in a period of healthy economic growth, you merely postpone by a year or so the date by which you reach a certain level of prosperity. And historically, technologies have proved far more efficient and less costly than anticipated, he noted.
Moreover, as Hansen remarked, the millions of barrels of oil you could easily save by 2030 are equivalent, at $40 a barrel, to $80 billion a year, “which would, independent of mitigating climate change, do a lot for our economic and national security.”
The view that it’s going to be terribly costly to mitigate climate change is shortsighted and irresponsible, Pachauri asserted. “You can’t see mitigation of climate change in isolation from other priorities.” He cited several benchmarks. Worldwide military expenditures for 2004 are estimated at $950 billion. In 2003, aid from donor nations totaled only $68.5 billion, 0.25% of their income; it’s generally believed aid should total around 0.7%. If the World Trade Organization reduces subsidies so that farmers in developing countries can compete on a level playing field, “altogether you’re providing a few hundred billion dollars a year” those countries could use to address climate change.
That is, the resources are there, but “there is unprecedented need for global vision and commitment. Groups like this – the scientific community, the thinkers of the world” – must bring it about.
Leaders and Laggards
The U.S. federal government hasn’t yet acted to regulate GHG emissions, although the United States is the largest GHG emitter in the world. Nor has it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The United States is not leading technologically or intellectually, charged Ken Colburn, whose organization, NESCAUM, is an association of eight Northeastern states’ air quality regulators who are working to reduce GHG emissions.
China just adopted motor vehicle standards that may ultimately disadvantage the United States technologically, he reported. Australia’s government hasn’t ratified Kyoto, but all 10 of its states are committed to capping GHG emissions, and they’ll meet the first Kyoto target for emission reductions.
Tony Blair has been progressive on climate. “He’s getting flak from the right for not going far enough.” Germany requires that solar energy be integrated into new buildings; New York City’s proposed building standards don’t. And while New York is the financial capital of the world, the intellectual capital for carbon markets is being built in London. The financial ramifications of the EU’s carbon-trading market will be significant, Colburn predicted.
While the federal government balks, U.S. states are pursuing initiatives. The California Air Resources Board announced fuel-efficiency standards that require a 30% reduction in emissions by 2016. The cost, about $1,000 per vehicle, will be recouped by lower fuel consumption. A coalition of auto manufacturers has mounted a legal challenge. “The worst problem in America relative to fuel efficiency standards? High standards would disadvantage domestic manufacturers…We evidently need to drag them kicking and screaming into technological survival.”
Coast to Coast
Like the Northeastern states, California, Oregon, and Washington – whose fossil-fuel GHG emissions total 7% of the global total – are pursuing an initiative to develop a cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions. Some “red states” are putting together climate action plans. With implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and the start of EU carbon trading, Colburn said, “pressure is especially building on the business community.”
Karl Michael, who coordinates New York State’s energy, environmental, and economic modeling and forecasting activities related to energy policy and planning, reported some bright spots on the state level. “Ten years ago…global warming wasn’t on the radar screen,” he recalled. But a state Climate Change Action Plan formulated five years ago rapidly evolved into a statewide GHG task force. “Suddenly, it was…the hottest issue in town.” Today, climate change issues are one of Governor George Pataki’s highest priorities.
New York adopted the goal of reducing its 1990 GHG emissions levels by 5% by 2010, and by 10% by 2020. It imposed a “system benefit charge” on electric bills to fund a variety of programs related to energy efficiency and renewable resources. It required that, by 2013, 25% of electricity used in the state come from renewable resources. “We expect that to mean a lot of windmills.” Roughly 16% now comes from renewable sources, largely hydro projects. “Moving to 25% over a decade is a big commitment,” Michael noted.
Just the Beginning
Another bold venture, initiated by Governor Pataki, is the Regional GHG Initiative (RGGI), a consortium of Northeastern states that’s developing a regional cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions from electricity generators. A model rule each state can use to fashion its own regulations is due out by April 2005.
The governors are saying, “We’re serious about this. Get this done. Come up with something that will work,” Michael said. And they want to help the economy by encouraging the development of new technologies. RGGI expects “to make some real changes” in how electricity is produced in the Northeast. The hope is that the federal government will follow suit, “because this is something the states are clearly way out ahead on.” After emissions from electricity generators are capped, RGGI will turn to other sectors. “We see this as just the beginning.”
Also read: The Dire Climate Change Wakeup Call
About the Author
Christine Van Lenten is a freelance writer who has written about environmental subjects for the Academy, government agencies, and private sector firms
