Back From Mauritius

Posted on July 30, 2013 by climatechangefork

I am back from the climate change conference in Mauritius (See my July 2 blog for the full program). I was away for almost a month in total – a long time on the road. I visited a few countries in southern Africa on my way to Mauritius, and on the way back, I made a detour through Israel, where I visited friends and attended to some family business. In the next few blogs I will detail some of my observations, starting here, with a short description of what I learned during the conference.

I have attended several conferences in the past. This one focused on adaptation to climate change in African countries. The most unique aspect of this conference was the relatively large participation of African researchers, including quite a few from Mauritius, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. This was further emphasized by additional contributions from researchers in developed countries, who also focused their work on African countries.

A map of Mauritius is shown above. It is a small, beautiful island that serves as home to about 1.3 million people.

In Mauritius, the people are obviously aware of the dangers of Climate Change. But unlike other small islands such as the Maldives, where President Mohammed Nasheed held an underwater cabinet meeting to emphasize the existential danger, Mauritius didn’t view the danger as immediately threatening to its existence until recently. One of the reasons is the topography of the island that is shown on the map above. The Maldives, the planet’s lowest country, with the lowest natural highest point, faces an impending risk of total submersion. In contrast, the center of Mauritius consists of high mountains (the highest mountain, Piton de la Petite Rivière Noire, is 2700 ft high). The capital, Port-Louis (population – 138,000), is also surrounded by beautiful mountains. The photograph below was taken from the window of my hotel where the conference was held.

On March 30, 2013, however, the view was very different. The city experienced torrential flooding, with water coming from the surrounding mountains, and rendering the city almost invisible. Photographs of the flood are all over the internet.

The intensification of extreme weather events, that climate change is causing, didn’t escape the government’s attention; the impact was not much different from that which hurricane Sandy had made on the United States a few months earlier.

Up to that point, Mauritius’ attitude towards climate change was similar to that of most other countries. On September 4, 2009, the Prime Minister’s Office set up a Steering Committee, which was made up of representatives from various Ministries and Departments, members of the Academia and international development partners. The committee’s objectives were:

  1. to coordinate the “Maurice Ile Durable” (MID) (Mauritius Sustainable Island) project from a more holistic perspective
  2. to harmonize efforts in the MID endeavor, and
  3. to look into all aspects of sustainability.

The full report can be seen at the MID webpage.
On July 15, 2011, the Steering Committee was converted into the Commission on Maurice Ile Durable which operates under the aegis of the Prime Minister’s Office in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and other stakeholders. The responsibility of the MID Commission is to ensure the finalization of the Action Plan on Maurice Ile Durable and its timely implementation. While the flooding has not ultimately made a direct change to policy initiatives, its effects have been visible in guiding conversations about the present and future of the country.

The Chair of the commission was one of the plenary speakers at the meeting. He recounted some of the steps that the MID has taken over the past few years, and summarized the report I mentioned above.

Other presentations focused on specific sections of the economy: mainly as it related to tourism and agriculture. Concerns for climate change’s predicted impact on tourism, for example, centered mostly on the changes to bio diversity, as well as on the quality of the beautiful beaches. The concern was that these changes, coupled with the vast array of competing tourist’s attractions all over the world, would discourage tourists from coming. The projected impact on agriculture through climate change’s impacts on weather patterns is a concern common to most countries; I will discuss it in a separate blog.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Vacation Notice

Posted on July 23, 2013 by climatechangefork

The conference in Mauritius just finished up, and I’m on vacation for the next week so unfortunately, there will be no new post today.

Please do come back next Tuesday, when I promise to tell you all about my recent travels and adventures, as well as what they mean about the global response to climate change.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Unburnable Fuels: Removing Reserves From The Balance Sheet.

Posted on July 17, 2013 by climatechangefork

The New York Times recently reported (June 20, 2013) that shortly, President Obama would announce a new set of initiatives to combat climate change, and that he will make it a major focus to fight climate change during his second term. Since this blog will be posted while I am in Africa, it is very likely that this initiative will be announced before the blog is posted. The president is now well aware that he cannot pass a major climate change initiative through the present congress. So the thinking is that the initiative will strongly rely on executive power — mainly through the regulatory powers of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). I am proposing a timely change in accounting that, while it does not immediately seem directly related to any executive attempt to limit greenhouse emissions, could potentially make for a big change in the political terrain of this issue.

Recently a new term has popped up in the debate on climate change: “unburnable fuels.”

The term probably got its start in a research article in Nature (Nature 458, 1158-1162 (30 April 2009)), titled, “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C.” It starts with the following paragraph:

More than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2°C or below (relative to preindustrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages 1, 2. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions corresponding to a specified maximum warming are poorly known owing to uncertainties in the carbon cycle and the climate response. Here we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000–50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2°C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints.

The authors summarized the quantitative conclusion to this challenge:

For our illustrative distribution of climate system properties, we find that the probability of exceeding 2°C can be limited to below 25% (50%) by keeping 2000–49 cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil sources and land use change to below 1,000 (1,440) Gt CO2 (Fig. 3a and Table 1). If we resample model parameters to reproduce 18 published climate sensitivity distributions, we find a 10–42% probability of exceeding 2°C for such a budget of 1,000Gt CO2. If the acceptable exceedance probability were only 20%, this would require an emission budget of 890 Gt CO2 or lower (illustrative default). Given that around 234 Gt CO2 were emitted between 2000 and 2006 and assuming constant rates of 36.3 Gt CO2 yr-1 (ref. 3) thereafter, we would exhaust the CO2 emission budget by 2024, 2027 or 2039, depending on the probability accepted for exceeding 2°C (respectively 20%, 25% or 50%).

The issue was dormant for a few years, until very recently the number 1,000Gt (1GT = 1 billion tons) of carbon dioxide started to attract attention in print, lecture circuits and the blogosphere.

The Economist published (May 4th 2013 issue) a short article, “Either governments are not serious about climate change or fossil-fuel firms are overvalued.” The article starts with the following paragraph:

Markets can misprice risk, as investors in subprime mortgages discovered in 2008. Several recent reports suggest that markets are now overlooking the risk of “unburnable carbon”. The share prices of oil, gas and coal companies depend in part on their reserves. The more fossil fuels a firm has underground, the more valuable its shares. But what if some of those reserves can never be dug up and burned?

It summarizes the present situation this way:

If governments were determined to implement their climate policies, a lot of that carbon would have to be left in the ground, says Carbon Tracker, a non-profit organization, and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, part of the London School of Economics. Their analysis starts by estimating the amount of carbon dioxide that could be put into the atmosphere if global temperatures are not to rise by more than 2°C, the most that climate scientists deem prudent. The maximum, says the report, is about 1,000 gigatons (GTCO2)between now and 2050. The report calls this the world’s “carbon budget”.

Existing fossil-fuel reserves already contain far more carbon than that. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA),in its “World Energy Outlook”, total proven international reserves contain 2,860GTCO2—almost three times the carbon budget.The report refers to the excess as “unburnable carbon”. Most of the reserves are owned by governments or state energy firms; they could be left in the ground by public-policy choice (ie, if governments took the 2°C target seriously). But the reserves of listed oil companies are different. These are assets developed using money raised from investors who expect are turn. Proven reserves of listed firms contain 762GTCO2—most of what can prudently be burned before 2050. Listed potential reserves have 1,541GTCO2 embedded in them.

The conclusion is that to satisfy the estimated below 2°C target, much of the “proven” reserves will have to stay forever in the ground as untapped, unburnable fuel.

The distribution of this unburnable fuel among the oil company was given by the Economist and is shown below:

How the oil and gas reserves became part of market capitalization is a complex issue, so here are some of the relevant paragraphs of the Wikipedia summary to get you up to speed:

Proven reserves are those reserves claimed to have a reasonable certainty (normally at least 90% confidence) of being recoverable under existing economic and political conditions, with existing technology. Industry specialists refer to this as P90 (i.e., having a 90% certainty of being produced). Proven reserves are also known in the industry as 1P. [8][9]

Proven reserves are further subdivided into “proven developed” (PD) and “proven undeveloped”(PUD).[9][10] PD reserves are reserves that can be produced with existing wells and perforations, or from additional reservoirs where minimal additional investment (operating expense) is required.[10]PUD reserves require additional capital investment (e.g., drilling new wells) to bring the oil to the surface .[8][10]

Until December 2009 “1P” proven reserves were the only type the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allowed oil companies to report to investors. Companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges must substantiate their claims, but many governments and national oil companies do not disclose verifying data to support their claims. Since January 2010 the SEC now allows companies to also provide additional optional information declaring “2P” (both proven and probable) and “3P” (proven +probable + possible) provided the evaluation is verified by qualified third party consultants, though many companies choose to use 2P and 3P estimates only for internal purposes.

Much of the political opposition (at least in the US) to mitigation efforts to counter human contributions to climate change, comes from the “Heartland Institute” and its supporters. There is a short description on Wikipedia that focuses on the financing behind the institute. The relevant part to the present issue is as follows:

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[43 ] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[20] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[43][44][45] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[43]

The last series of blogs have focused, among other things, on the quote from ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, who reputedly said, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?” – equating inherent “suffering” with a more limited use of fossil fuels. What he actually means by this is that setting a “cap” of usage at below the total quantity of “proven reserves” that still lay untapped would mean a major reduction in the capitalization rates of ExxonMobil and other oil companies (which would, in turn, require realignment of the stock prices). So from this perspective, the introduction of a “cap” would mean major confiscation of capital from the stock holders – an action that is viewed by many as un-American.

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) made an administrative decision to categorize untapped oil reserves as part of the capital value of a company, for accounting purposes; this decision can be reversed through an administrative order. In reality, these reserves are no more capital than would be the “good ideas” of the company’s staff scientists. They contribute to the capitalization process through good name, track records, etc., but do not add to the explicit pricing or marketability of the good idea. If the accounting rules were changed, so as to remove those reserves from the capitalization appraisal, the company would still retain the ownership and exploration rights of the real-estate in which the reserves are buried, but the reserves would only factor into the capitalization when they were ready to be marketed. The assessment of the value of this real estate would, instead, follow the same objective procedures that other commercial real estate properties enjoy.  Once we put a “cap” on extraction, if the market were to exceed this “cap,” the price of the real estate would rise, thus benefiting the company, and rendering moot the need to use its resources to oppose the “cap.” This is an example of a situation where a change in the status quo could potentially benefit almost all parties.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Welcome, Skeptical Science Readers!

Posted on July 13, 2013 by climatechangefork

To those of you who just heard about my blog from Skeptical Science: welcome! I hope that you will read some of my more recent posts as well. Please, subscribe to my RSS feed, and leave me comments- I welcome feedback of all kinds.

To my current readers who might be feeling confused now: my post, Climate Change and the Nature of Science: The Carbon “Tipping Point” is Coming, was just featured as a guest post on Skeptical Science. This is one of my all time favorite sites, so if you haven’t visited it yet, I strongly encourage you to do so.

Just as a reminder, I’d love to hear your thoughts on my posts (and not just you newcomers).  Additionally, I’m always curious to know how you heard about my blog.

You can also follow me on twitter @MichaTomkiewicz or friend me on Facebook: Micha Tomkiewicz.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Climate Change, Hiroshima and Nuclear Winter.

Posted on July 9, 2013 by climatechangefork

The power of analogy can just as easily be used productively or be abused. I was accused of the latter when I compared the general populace’s inactivity in the 1930s to prevent the Nazis’ early efforts at ethnic cleansing (which later led to the Holocaust), with our present unwillingness to prevent the deaths of millions or billions that could result from anthropogenic climate change (May 14, 2012). I was attacked, both by people that believe in climate change, who claimed that I was cheapening the Holocaust, and by people that do not believe in climate change, who saw this as a cheap way to raise the temperature of the debate (see comments on that blog post). The only way that I could respond to such criticism was to go to the dictionary definition of Genocide and to correlate it with the details and uncertainties of trying to predict the impact of climate change in a business as usual scenario.

An issue of similar controversy is now moving through the lecture circuits and the blogosphere. It compares the impact of climate change to that of dropping of tens of thousands of Hiroshima bombs per day – in other words, it compares the impact of climate change in a business as usual scenario to global nuclear genocide (See for example, James Hansen’s TED Talk)

Again, in an attempt to uncover the truth or falsehood of such an analogy we must go to the numbers and to basic science on both ends of this comparison – that of climate change and that of the bomb at Hiroshima.

A detailed, credible description of the Hiroshima bomb (“Little Boy”) can be found (as usual) on Wikipedia. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 by the United States Army Air Force. It was the first of the two consecutive bombs. The explosive power of the bomb came from the nuclear fission of uranium 235. The bomb weighed 9,700lb (4,400 kg), of which approximately 1g was converted into energy. The explosive power of this energy amounted to 67TJ (equivalent to 16 thousand tons of TNT). An estimated 90,000 – 166,000 people were killed during its explosion.

What has this got to do with climate change? To look at the analogy simply in terms of loss of life on such a massive scale is both too general and completely confusing. In actuality, the analogy is based on the amount of released energy that can be calculated for both climate change and the bomb. To be clear, this does not factor in the other aspects of the bomb- namely the immediate destruction, radiation, and all around horror that it caused; here we are focusing only on the energy released.

(Warning: the next section contains SCIENCE- but I promise it’s worth it!)

The information about the energy that was released by the bomb is given in two forms: the 1g of bomb material that was converted to energy and the 67TJ of energy it produced. The two forms are connected through Einstein’s famous E = MC2 formula, where E is the energy (given in the energy unit of Joules), M is the mass (given in kg) and C is the speed of light, a constant equal to 300 million (3×108) meters/second (671 million miles/hour).

So 1g of energy converted is:

E(Joules) = (0.001kg)x(3×108)2 = 90×1012 Joules = 90TJ (Where T stands for Tera, which is equivalent to trillion). The difference between the 67TJ that is given in the Wikipedia and the 90 TJ that we have estimated here is because our 1g conversion is a rounded number. This amounts to a 30% difference, which does not play a very significant part in our analysis. The Joule is a common unit of energy that is related to BTU (British thermal unit) by 1 BTU = 1055 Joules. The Joule is more familiar to many of us through the use of another unit – the Watt (100W light bulb). The Watt, however, is not a unit of energy but a unit of power. 1Watt = 1 Joule/second.

The only possible valid analogy between climate change and the Hiroshima bomb comes if we use bomb as a unit of energy that approximately amounts to 100TJ.

We are now ready to try to calculate the other end of this analogy – the energy that is being released through climate change. This is done through a parameter called “Radiative Forcing.”

Radiative Forcing is defined as “the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space.” A positive forcing is defined as more radiation coming in than going out, thus warming the surface; negative forcing describes the opposite and its cooling of the surface. The IPCC was able to assemble the data for many greenhouse gases. The corresponding values are given below:

Diagram showing Radiative Forcing of Climate between 1750 and 2005

The measurements are taken at the top of the lowest level of the atmosphere – the troposphere. The commonly used reference year is 1750, which is seen as the (somewhat arbitrary) starting point of human industrial activities and our heavy reliance on fossil fuels. The units are in watt/m2. One can see that the net total radiative forcing that is associated with human activities is about 1.6watt/m2, with carbon dioxide as the dominant contributor. To convert the radiative forcing to the net heat that is added to the Earth, we have to multiply this number by the surface area of the lower atmosphere and by the time since 1750. Using this full number in our calculations would be an exaggeration, because in the earlier years of that spectrum, the net radiative forcing that was caused by human activity was much smaller. To give an order of magnitude, we can assume that the significant increase in human activity started in 1950 (the transistor was invented in 1948) and since most of the increase took place recently, we will instead take this time and divide it by two, assuming that the increase is linear. The resulting time comes out to be 8.7×108 seconds.

The radius of the Earth is 6,382km. When we add to that the thickness of the lowest atmosphere, approximately 11km, convert the sum to meters and apply the formula 4×π×R2 where R is the radius + the thickness of the lowest atmosphere, we get a surface area of 5.14×1014m2.

We will now multiply these two large numbers by the radiative forcing to get the total energy that was absorbed because of the energy imbalance that was created by human activity.  After doing the math, we are left with the astounding number of 7×1023Joules. To express that number using the unit of the Hiroshima bomb, we will divide this number by 1014, which gives us 7×109 or 7 billion equivalents of Hiroshima bombs falling on the Earth at a “constant” rate 5 bombs every second or around 18,000 bombs a day since about 1950. That is the approximate number, give or take a factor of 2 bombs per day (which can result from using different sets of assumptions), that is currently floating around on the lecture circuits and the blogosphere. If you want to argue with any specific assumption that was made here, you are more than welcome to try your own hand at this exercise.

One last comment on this issue: 5 Hiroshima bombs per second over 55 years unquestionably qualifies under the definition of nuclear holocaust. Even without doing much research on the topic, if we associate the climatic consequences of a nuclear holocaust of a much smaller size, with the concept of “Nuclear Winter,” (which I associate with the American Astrophysicist Carl Sagan) the results are rather frightening.  Wikipedia provides a rather extensive description of the background of the concept. They define Nuclear Winter as:

Nuclear winter (also known as atomic winter) is a hypothetical climatic effect of countervalue nuclear war. Models suggest that detonating nuclear weapons could have a profound and severe effect on the climate causing cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of months or even years if the nuclear weapon strikes are on cities, comparable to Hiroshima, where it is modelled that large amounts of smoke and soot would be ejected into the Earth‘s stratosphere.[1]

Similar climatic effects can be caused by comets or an asteroid impact,[2][3] also sometimes termed an impact winter, or by a supervolcano eruption, known as a volcanic winter.[4]

That is for one bomb; if we then multiply that concept to reflect our scope of billions, we can understand the potential impact worldwide. Taking that into account– the analogy seems not to be restricted to a choice of energy units but actually converges into catastrophic climatic consequences that will leave nothing unaffected. Maybe using the bomb at Hiroshima will help us to visualize the significance of the outcome of climate change. It’s alright that the image is controversial– we need people to pay attention.

Posted in Climate Change, Education | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

July in Southern Africa – Mauritius

Posted on July 2, 2013 by climatechangefork

In July, I am going to attend the Fifth International Conference on Climate: Impacts and Responses, to be held in the island of Mauritius. This is the same meeting that was held last year in Seattle Washington, which I described in my July 16, 2012 blog. My wife and I have decided to use the meeting as a pretext for an extended tour of Southern Africa. We will be back in the beginning of August.

I have pre-written a few blogs (including this one) to be published during my absence. In the weeks after my return I will try (provided outside events do not supersede my plans – we remember that the future is ever uncertain) to focus on the forecasts of climate change impact on Southern Africa. I will put particular emphasis on islands such as Mauritius and Madagascar, as viewed through the “official” eyes of the IPCC and the conference participants.

The scheduled program of the conference is copied below. I will be presenting a talk, Bottom-up Mitigation of Global Climate Change: Fuel Selection and Classroom Exposure, along with my partner, Prof. Lori Scarlatos, from StonyBrook University, where we will give updates of our progress in the online/offline game/simulation that we presented last year. The focus is to quantitatively compare a world based on student choices with the real world parameters.

FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPACTS AND RESPONSES
PORT-LOUIS, MAURITIUS
18-19 JULY 2013
www.on-climate.com

Arrival of Chief Guest
Hon Devanand Virahsawmy, Minister of Environment & Sustainable Development, Republic of Mauritius

Welcome Address
Dr G. Raj Chintaram
Chairperson ANPRAS/ Conference Co-Chair; Izabel Szary, Common Ground

Welcome Address
Hon Devanand Virahsawmy, Minister of Environment & Sustainable Development

Minister & Common Ground Declare Conference Open

Plenary Session
Dr Richard Munang, Climate Change Adaptation & Development Programme for Africa, United Nations

Plenary Room

Date of Snowmelt in the Arctic and Variations with Climate Patterns and Oscillations
Dr. James Foster, NASA, United States — Dr. Judah Cohen, Verisk Analytics, United States
Snowmelt changes observed since the late 1980s have been step-like in nature rather than continuous. It appears in some instances these changes are related to a climate regime shift.

Effects of CO2-driven pH Decline on the Early Developmental Stages of Sea Urchins from across the World
Emily Joy Frost, University of Otago, New Zealand
The impact of ocean acidification on the ion-regulation physiology, general physiology and ion-regulation genetics on an Antarctic (Sterechinusneumayeri), tropical and temperate (Evechinuschloroticus) sea urchin species

Mitigation Strategies
Room 1

Adaptation to Climate Change: Israel and the Eastern Mediterranean
Prof. Mordechai Shechter, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Israel
This paper assembles the existing scientific research regarding adaptation to climate change, identifies research gaps, and defines the risks and consequences of climate change in various sectors.

Bottom-up Mitigation of Global Climate Change: Fuel Selection and Classroom Exposure
Micha Tomkiewicz, Brooklyn College of CUNY, United States — Prof. Lori Scarlatos, Stony Brook University, United States The talk will present progress in the online/offline game/simulation that was previously presented here. The focus is to quantitatively compare world based on student choices with the real world parameters.

Climate Change, Mitigation, and Nationally Appropriate Action: The Road to Nationally Appropriate Definitions
Cecilia Therese T. Guiao, -, Philippines
A Philippine perspective on mitigation targets and NAMAs, the current state of Philippine policies, and important factors to be considered by public and private sectors in line with sustainable development. 

Climate Change Challenges
Room 2

Carbon Neutral Mine Site Villages: Calculation and Offset Mechanism
Mr David Goodfield, Murdoch University, Australia — Dr. Martin Anda, Murdoch University, Australia — Prof. Goen Ho, Murdoch University, Australia
Calculation of the carbon footprint of minesite villages is a complex process. A sustainable solution to offset the total carbon is equally hard to determine and justify to the stakeholders. 

Designing an Education and Training Framework to Build Local Capacity in Climate Change Adaptation and Low Carbon Livelihoods
Dr Shireen Fahey, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Geoff Dews, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr. Noel Meyers, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Graham Ashford, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
An education and training framework to build local capacity in climate change adaptation and low carbon livelihoods in the Indian Ocean region

Fictional Depictions of Climate Change: An Analysis of Themes from Contemporary Climate Change Literature
Dr. Danielle Clode, Flinders University, Australia — Monika Stasiak, Flinders University, Australia
This paper explores emerging themes in contemporary climate change literature as a reflection of, and influence on, broader community perceptions about the world of the future.

Imagining Sustainable Futures for the Chagos Archipelago: Environmental Conservation versus Livelihood and Development?
Dr Laura Jeffery, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Conflicting projections do not demonstrate conclusively whether proposed economic activities and infrastructural development in the Chagos MPA could make human habitation feasible while simultaneously enabling effective environmental conservation.

Humankind and the Environment Attitude towards Small Hotel Greening Initiative: Perspective from Tourists and Hoteliers of the Eastern Coast of Mauritius
Vanessa GB Gowreesunkar, University of Technology Mauritius, Mauritius — Dandini Thondrayen, ANPRAS, Mauritius — Sarita Nuckcheddee, ANPRAS, Mauritius — Kirti Rukmani Devi Tohul, ANPRAS, Mauritius — Jayveer Kumar Lobin, ANPRAS, Mauritius
This study investigates the attitude of tourists and small hotel managers towards green hotel initiative and attempts to make the case for its application within small hotels found in Mauritius.

Impacts of Climate Change-induced Conflict on Pastoralism and Human Security in Northwestern Kenya: Impacts of Water and Pasture Scarcity on Livelihoods
Moses Hillary Akuno, United Nations University Institute for Sustainability and Peace, Japan
Recent prolonged droughts and unpredictable weather changes have had a direct impact on conflict, turning it to a more frequent and destructive affair.l

Prospects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) in the Feng Shui Forest in Peri- urban Hong Kong: A Policy Instrument for Climate Change Discourse
Prof. Lawal Mohammed Marafa, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China — K.C. Sunil, The Chines University of Hong Kong, China
Feng Shui forests are part of Hong Kong’s peri-urban ecosystem, which provides environmental services. This paper examines the services and discusses prospects for policy instruments in delivering ecosystem services.

New Climate Change Information Framework for Behavior Change: Sharing the Framework to Facilitate Dialogue and Action on Climate change
Dr Candice Howarth, Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom
A climate information framework is presented based on UK research to encourage action and sustainable behaviour change. It hopes to generate dialogue on its application to different case study scenarios

Response of Coral Reef Fish to Simulated Ocean Acidification
Prof., Dr. Saleem Mustafa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia — ShigeharuSenoo, Universiti Malaysia sabah, Malaysia — Marianne Luin, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia
Ocean acidification driven by climate change is accelerating and impact on marine life is imminent. This paper examines how coral reef fish, groupers, are directly affected by acidification.

Coastal Communities: Special Topics
Room 1

Characteristics of Respondents in a Climate Change-affected Coastal Area in Bangladesh
Russell Kabir, Middlesex University, United Kingdom
This study explores the characteristics of coastal people of Bangladesh related to socio-economic, environmental, and demographic issues, water and toilet facilities, natural resources and access to mass media.

Exploratory Study about the Impacts of Islets Tourism in the ‘MTVC’ Region in Eastern Mauritius
Dr. Gowtam Raj Chintaram, ANPRAS, Mauritius — WardaMohungoo, ANPRAS, Mauritius — YogshresthSabandy, ANPRAS, Mauritius — Louis Clarel Salomon, ANPRAS, Mauritius
The small nature and uniqueness of islets have made such destinations increasingly popular. The appeal for micro destinations have popularized offshore islets tourism but also created serious environmental threats.

Indigenous Knowledge and Climate Change: Settlement Patterns of the Past to Future Resilience
Phillip Roos, Deakin University, Australia
Aboriginal settlement patterns of the past provide adaptation solutions for a proposed design-based adaptation model for settlements along the Australian coast impacted by climate change and sea level rise.

Using Integrated Models for Adaptation Planning: Evaluating Adaptation Investments for the Tourism Sector in the Coastal Zone of Mauritius
Graham Ashford, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr. Noel Meyers, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
— Geoff Dews, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr Shireen Fahey, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Mauritius’ coastal pilot study to evaluate adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies using economic cost-benefit analysis in combination with sustainable development criteria as part of a multi-criteria decision making process

Large Scale Implications

Analysis of Tropical Cyclones Dynamics and Its Impacts
Yee Leung, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
The paper presents the dynamics of tropical cyclone recurvatures, landfalls and intensities under climate anomalies, particularly in ENSO years. It also introduces a powerful system for analysis, prediction and decision-making.

Assessing Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change Using Monthly Water Balance Models
Dr. Yongqin Chen, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
This paper presents a study that analyzes and compares the performance and underlying mechanism of six monthly water balance models in a climate change assessment of hydrological impacts. 

Climate Model Intercomparison at the Dynamics Level
Prof. Anastasios Tsonis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States — Dr. Karsten Steinhaeuser, University of Minnesota, United States
A systematic comparison of CMIP3 forced and unforced runs for the purpose of evaluating the robostness of climate simulations and projections 

Water and Climate Change: An Integrated Approach to Address Adaptation Challenges
Dr. Udaya Sekhar Nagothu, The Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research, Bioforsk, Norway
The study addresses how improved integrated water management practices could increase agricultural production and food security, protect natural systems and be a “game changer” for national food security.

Climate Change Challenges

F1 Progeny of White Fulani and New Jersey Cows: A Panacea to Climate Change Effect on Dairy Cow Productivity in North Central Nigeria
Prof. Abiodun Adeloye, University of Ilorin, Ilorin , Nigeria, Nigeria
The growth performance and suitability of the F1 progeny of indigenous White Fulani and exotic New Jersey cattle is studied in the North Central region of Nigeria.

Lost Polar Bear in London: Visualising Climate Change and U.K. National Press Coverage of the Rio+20 Summit
Prof. Alison Anderson, University of Plymouth, UK, United Kingdom
This paper examines the role that celebrity advocacy played in the reporting of the 2012 Rio Earth Summit in the British newspaper press. 

Modern Bioenergy Technologies for Universalizing Energy Access in India: Solving the Conflicting Challenges of Climate Change and Development
Dr. Balachandra Patil, Indian Institute of Science, India
This paper details an innovative approach to India’s energy challenges: limited access to modern energy services, the need to expand energy systems to achieve economic growth, and climate change threats. 

Date of Snowmelt in the Arctic and Variations with Climate Patterns and Oscillations
Dr. James Foster, NASA, United States — Dr. Judah Cohen, Verisk Analytics, United States
Snowmelt changes observed since the late 1980s have been step-like in nature rather than continuous. It appears in some instances these changes are related to a climate regime shift.

Effects of CO2-driven pH Decline on the Early Developmental Stages of Sea Urchins from across the World Emily Joy Frost, University of Otago, New Zealand
The impact of ocean acidification on the ion-regulation physiology, general physiology and ion-regulation genetics on an Antarctic (Sterechinusneumayeri), tropical and temperate (Evechinuschloroticus) sea urchin species

Agriculture and the Impacts of Change

Impacts of Climate Change on Supply Response for Maize in Kenya: Evidence from Cointegration Analysis
Dr. RakhalSarker, University of Guelph, Canada — Dr. Jonathan Nzuma, University of Nairobi, Kenya — Shashini Ratnasena, University of Guelph, Canada
Maize is the most important staple in Kenya. This paper attempts to determine the impacts of climate change on maize production in Kenya.

Priority Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process Modelling
Prof. Nazrul Islam, University of the Sunshine Coast/Sustainability Research Centre, Australia — Dr Nasir Uddin, Sunshine Coast University, Australia — Dr. Angela Wardell-Johnson, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr. Tanmoy Nath, Australia
This study assesses priority rankings of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and provide important information to food industry stakeholders for strategic interventions in regional food security in Australia.

Strategic Interventions to Manage Climate Change for Food Security: Modelling for Best Fit Using Evidence of Horticulture and Dairy in Australia
Dr Nasir Uddin, Sunshine Coast University, Australia — Dr. Angela Wardell-Johnson, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
— Prof. Nazrul Islam, University of the Sunshine Coast/Sustainability Research Centre, Australia — Dr. Tanmoy Nath, Australia This study used a number of scenarios to provide evidence of the links between CC risks, adaptive capacities, and adaptation/mitigation strategies for strategic interventions in the food security of Australia.

Gas Emissions: Implications

Carbon Budget Method Based on GIS
Anand Sookun, Mauritius
A geostatistical method adapted to GIS has been developed to account for the terrestrial carbon budget which involve carbon emissions net of carbon uptakes by plants and soil.

Energy Labeling and Residential House Prices: Some Evidence from the United Kingdom
Prof. Pat McAllister, University College London, United Kingdom — Dr. Anupam Nanda, University of Reading, United Kingdom
— Prof. Peter Wyatt, University of Reading, United Kingdom — Dr. Franz Fuerst, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
This paper outlines the results of the first large-scale empirical analysis of the effects of certificates on energy performance on residential property prices in England and Wales.

Ocean Acidification: A Major Threat?
Diyashvir Kreetee Rajiv Babajee, African Network for Policy Research & Advocacy for Sustainability, Mauritius, Mauritius — Dr. Gowtam Raj Chintaram, ANPRAS, Mauritius
We use a global CO2 model to make predictions of the pH of oceans in 2100 for 5 cases based on possible measures to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Policies and Programs: Climate Change

Bargaining for Nature in China’s Urban Planning Practice: Insights from the Tianjin Eco- City Project
Assoc. Prof. Jiang Xu, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
This presentation uses Tianjin Eco-City Planning as an example to illustrate how Chinese urban planners bargain for ecological value of spaces under the great pressure to commodify urban spaces. 

Capital and Climate Change: Evaluating Capacity for Strategic Intervention
Dr. Angela Wardell-Johnson, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr Nasir Uddin, Sunshine Coast University, Australia
— Prof. Nazrul Islam, University of the Sunshine Coast/Sustainability Research Centre, Australia — Dr. TanmoyNath, Australia
— Brian Richard Stockwell, Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning, Australia
This research used a framework of seven capitals represented Triple Bottom Line values to test capacity to implement climate change intervention strategies through identified risk scenarios.

Domestic Policy Commitments to International Climate and Sustainability Agreements: The Role of Employer Organisations and Trade Unions
Peter J. Glynn, Bond University, Australia — Prof. RosTaplin, University of New South Wales, Australia
While domestic policy overtly reflects international climate agreements, the economic and social elements of the agreements are less obvious but are nevertheless embedded in the policy framework.

Managing for Ecological Resilience: Case Studies from Developing Countries
Geoff Dews, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Graham Ashford, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr. Noel Meyers, The University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia — Dr Shireen Fahey, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
We use selected cases studies to demonstrate that implementing existing environmental management along with traditional management approaches can produce resilient ecosystems that promote ecosystem-based adaptation strategies. 

Societal Impacts of Climate Change

Analysis of Climate Dependent Infectious Diseases: A Case Study of Chennai
Divya Subash Kumar, Anna University, India — Dr. Ramachandran Andimuthu, Faculty/ ANNA UNIVERSITY, India
The data on some of the climate sensitive infectious diseases have been assessed to understand the conducive ranges of temperature and relative humidity for each of these diseases. 

Exploring the Health Effects of a Subtly Changing Climate: Risk and Vulnerability to Ross River Virus in Tasmania, Australia
Dr Anna Lyth, University of Tasmania and University of the Sunshine Coast (USC), Australia — Assoc. Prof. Neil Holbrook, University of Tasmania, Australia
This paper discusses a regional investigation of vulnerability to the mosquito-borne disease Ross River virus in Tasmania, Australia, where climate change effects are likely to be relatively subtle.

Thermal-induced Pavement Buckling in Heatwaves
Prof. Mark Bradford, The University of New South Wales, Australia
This study presents results of scientific modelling of upheaval buckling of concrete pavements subjected to elevated temperatures, as occurs in heatwaves. Buckling compromises safe travel and is being reported increasingly.

Scientific Evidence

Spatio-temporal Trends in Rainfall Variability and the El Niño Southern Oscillation in Mauritius
Caroline G. Staub, University of Florida, USA — Peter R. Waylen, University of Florida, USA
Annual precipitation totals in Mauritius are used to characterize the spatial and temporal variability of annual precipitation patterns and their response to underlying regional and global forcings from 1915-2009.

Posted in Climate Change, Education | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Terrain Part 4: Spending – on Adaptation or Mitigation?

Posted on June 25, 2013 by climatechangefork

If we agree that we have to start spending money now, in order to minimize future damage from climate change, where should we start: on adaptation or mitigation – or is it a false choice?

Global mitigation seems to be frozen- or at least this can be said of its form as an international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases through energy transition to more sustainable energy sources.  Attempts to adapt to future impacts of climate change seem to be on the rise, however, especially in light of the increasingly frequent need to adapt to extreme climatic events (mainly in urban environments). I summarized several of these efforts in the last few blogs – but do we need to change this trend, or continue it?

Adaptation is mostly local, in both its focus and its financing. This necessarily means that the rich can do much more than the poor. In a few days I am leaving to attend a conference in Mauritius. This is an isolated island in the Indian Ocean, about 2000km from the east coast of Africa. After my return, I will report the adaptation efforts of islands such as Mauritius in some detail. I will also try to show how they generate the resources necessary to finance these efforts. This is especially important, as in principle, if this generation of resources is unsuccessful, the poor will (quite literally) sink, while the rich surround themselves with protective walls to isolate them from the rest of the world.

 Table 1 – Top 20 cities ranked in terms of population exposed to coastal flooding in the 2070s (including both climate change and socioeconomic change) and showing present-day exposure (Source: Nicholls et al (2007), OECD, Paris)

Table 2: Top 20 cities ranked in terms of assets exposed to coastal flooding in the 2070s (including both climate change and socioeconomic change) and showing present-day exposure (Source: Nicholls et al (2007), OECD, Paris)

The two tables above show the top 20 cities ranked in terms of populations and property exposed to coastal flooding. Three out of the 20 are in developed countries in terms of population exposure and 9 out of the 20 in terms of exposed assets. Combining the figures for these top 20 cities, we see an estimated 24 million people exposed to severe flooding (equivalent to flooding zones). Out of these 24 million, 20 million live in what we currently consider developing countries. In the 2070s, the total population in these same cities and zones is estimated to reach 113 million people – out of which, more than 100 million will reside in what we now consider developing countries.

In terms of exposed assets, in the top 20 cities– US$ 2.2 trillion are now exposed– out of which “only” $0.4 trillion  are in developing countries. In the 2070s, a total of $27 trillion  will be vulnerable, out of which about half will be in cities in what are now considered to be developing countries.

Unlike adaptation, mitigation is global. With more than 70% of the population expected to reside in what we now consider developing countries, the chemical composition of the atmosphere will critically depend on policies in those countries. There is no way to control the chemical composition of the atmosphere without full cooperation of the developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol – the only globally binding protocol to limit greenhouse gases in the atmosphere- has not only excluded developing countries from this commitment, it is now also about to expire, with no agreed substitute in sight. Climate change cannot be solved on a local level; it has to be solved on a global level (see my December 3 blog). The only way to approach a global solution, of course, is to engage developing countries as part of the plan. In order to do that, developed countries must first lead the way and share in the fiscal responsibility; providing resources for adaptation to developing countries. For remediation to succeed, adaptation has to become global, and the efforts to make it so have to start now.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Terrain Part 3: Mayor Bloomberg’s Maginot.

Posted on June 18, 2013 by climatechangefork

My two previous blogs in this series (June 4 and June 11) focused on where and when to spend money so as to best combat climate change. Part 1 (June 4) delved into ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson’s widely publicized quote, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?” and its follow-up: “As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.” Such statements can be interpreted as saying – don’t bother mitigating the consequences of climate change while burning our fossil fuels; if something bad happens, Exxon will fix it.

Part 2 in this series (June 11) looked into the major spending necessary for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Here again, the choice balanced between two options. One involved implementing adaptations now, to prepare for a “worst case” scenario, (a measure that isolates only those that can afford it from the consequences). The other lay in closely monitoring impacts, so as to design a flexible adaptation plan that could be constantly updated and adjusted based on newer/ better data. The two examples that I have used are Tokyo, with its new massive adaptation plan that is focused on preventing a future Black Swan and New York City, whose report, “Climate Change Adaptation in New York City,” was anchored in flexible adaptation.

My original plan was to finish this series with this blog—weighing the issues involved in choosing between spending the money on adaptation or mitigation; advocating a balance between the two efforts. As often happens in this business, however, events in the real world “interfere” with our best plans: Mayor Bloomberg has just announced a comprehensive strategy to fight the impact of Sandy. The panel that the mayor convened in December 2012 (two months after Sandy) just issued a report titled, “A Stronger, More Resilient, New York,” which is posted on the PlaNYC2030 site. It is a very detailed report (445 pages) with precise descriptions of Sandy’s impact, as well as specific steps that the city needs to take to limit future damage from storms such as Sandy. To quote the report itself, the goal is, “producing a truly sustainable 21st century New York.”

The foreword from the Mayor includes a summary of the recommendations:

It is impossible to know what the future holds for New York. But if this plan is brought to life in the years and decades ahead, a major storm that hits New York will find a much stronger, better protected city.

In our vision of a stronger, more resilient city, many vulnerable neighborhoods will sit behind an array of coastal defenses. Waves rushing toward the coastline will, in some places, be weakened by off shore breakwaters or wetlands, while waves that do reach the shore will find more nourished beaches and dunes that will shield inland communities. In other areas, permanent and temporary flood walls will hold back rising waters, and storm surge will meet raised and reinforced bulkheads, tide gates, and other coastal protections.

…Of course, if this plan is implemented, New York City will not be “climate-change proof”—an impossible goal—but it will be far safer and more resilient than it is today. While no one can say with certainty exactly how much safer, the climate analysis in Chapter 2 shows that the investments recommended in this plan certainly will be worthwhile. Lives will be saved and many catastrophic losses avoided. For example, while Sandy caused about $19 billion in losses for our city, rising sea levels and ocean temperatures mean that by the 2050s, a storm like Sandy could cause an estimated $90 billion in losses (in current dollars)—almost five times as much.

The first question that sprang to mind as I read was the extent of the connection (if any) between this report and the previous adaptation report. I realize that both were issued by panels convened by the mayor, but while the first panel had a dominant level of academic participation, the credentials of the more recent panel were not listed in the report. I scanned the report for “flexible adaptation” and found nothing; likewise when I searched for background references.

The steps that were recommended with great geographical detail include almost all of the methods currently being used globally to protect against impacts. Yes, the price seems high, but it is not nearly as expensive when directly compared to the after-the-fact cost of damages caused by a single major storm such as Sandy or Katrina. Among the recommendations are changes to the building codes, the funding for which the Mayor said is secured. Other than that, much is uncertain; the next New York City Hall elections are scheduled to take place in November 2013. Since Mayor Bloomberg is not going to run for another term (his fourth), the process of implementation is left to the next administration.

Each of the proposed measures is directly based on the lessons New York learned from its experience of Sandy’s impact. In military terminology, this kind of strategy is known as “fighting the last war,” and is often used to describe a losing proposition based on out-of-date information. Probably the “best” example of this strategy, and its pitfalls, is the Maginot Line, the French structure of concrete fortifications built along the French-German border in the 1930s. The line, which was constructed based on the French experience from World War I, was designed to block a future German Invasion from that front. On May 1940, however, the Germans didn’t challenge the line but went instead through Belgium, quickly defeating the French army and conquering France.

Conditions and impacts change and we must therefore change our adaptation strategies as well. I find it unsurprising that there was a mute, polite, response to the Mayor’s proposal. The consensus seems to be that it will pan out in a manner not much different from the adaptation report from 2010. Maybe that parallel will expand, and some guy like me will use some class time two years from now to investigate what has been implemented, and/or accomplished. Hopefully it will not take a repeat of last years’ occurrence– another massive storm with different characteristics than Sandy’s– to show us how much we failed to learn from the experience.

The recent report explores the old routine of constructing adaptation mechanisms based on past events. The track records of such strategies are not promising, especially since in this case, they omitted fundamental issues such as the uncertainty involved in predicting the weather conditions for a somewhat distance future. Such uncertainties need to be matched against the time required to build the infrastructure for the chosen adaptation strategies. To optimize the timing, one needs to put into place an updated network of sensors and constantly compare the local results with the computer-simulated global model predictions. Strategies like this were discussed in the in the 2010 report but not in the more recent one.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs (April 30 and May 21), local adaptation against sea level rise and extreme storms has the unfortunate side effect of shifting the impact to surrounding communities. This is one reason that local adaptation cannot stay completely local (another reason is the need to find sources of funding, an endeavor where coordination contributes to the adaptation policies). Also suspiciously missing from the report, was any mention of the mechanism that we have named “adaptive rebuilding”—which was intended to discourage people from rebuilding in vulnerable zones, as proposed by the Governor of the State of New York.

In my opinion, it probably would have been much more effective to reassemble the team that prepared the 2010 report and ask them to update it in the wake of Sandy.  They would have been able to then incorporate not only the new information they have, but might also have a longer perspective on how to spend the $20 billion now available to better prepare the City for future storms. The 2012 report, as it stands, contains some very useful proposals, such as its emphasis on updating the building codes and securing services such as gas supply, power delivery, transportation and other services following such storms. While these measures that will hopefully make a major contribution to further discussion, they are just that: a start. We can do better. 

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Terrain Part 2: Spending Now or Spending Later.

Posted on June 11, 2013 by climatechangefork

Throughout this blog, my emphasis has been on possible responses to the impacts of climate change. I divided the responses into three categories: mitigation, adaptation and doing nothing. ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, recommends doing nothing, reasoning that if something bad happens, Exxon can and will fix it (June 4 blog). I, among many others, have recommended that ongoing efforts include a combination of mitigation and adaptation. This is taking place, but at a pace that many of us find wanting. The doing nothing now approach does not involve spending any money upfront – but the rebuilding necessary after a furious storm like Sandy (whose scope is at least partially a result of climate change) does. Two weeks ago (May 21 blog), I  introduced the concept of “adaptive rebuilding”– by using financial incentives to encourage people to move to less vulnerable areas, we can minimize future impact, preventing unnecessary suffering and death. Financially, this involves a choice between spending money for prevention now, or potentially (probably) spending much larger sums rebuilding later. As I have mentioned previously, predicting the latter amount is very uncertain and many people hate to spend money on uncertainties.

In Tokyo they have decided to spend the money now. A Bloomberg News article describes it in the following way:

Tokyo Prepares for a Once-in-200-Year Flood to Top Sandy

Tokyo, the world’s most populated metropolis, is building defenses for the possibility of a flood in the next 200 years that could dwarf the damage superstorm Sandy wrought on the U.S. East Coast. Japan’s capital, flanked by rivers to the east and west, as well as running through it, faces 33 trillion yen ($322 billion) in damages should the banks break on the Arakawa River that bisects Tokyo, according to government estimates. That’s more than five times the $60.2 billion aid package for Sandy that slammed into the U.S. northeast last October. “Japan hasn’t prepared enough,” said Toru Sueoka, president of the Japanese Geotechnical Society, an organization of engineers, consultants and researchers. “Weather patterns have changed and we are getting unusual conditions. We need upgrades or else our cities won’t be able to cope with floods.”

After Sandy, there were some thoughts in New York City to respond in a similar way, but the city and the country were not in a mood at that time to spend large sums of money on uncertain predictions of future events. Even before Sandy, NYC decided that with the future uncertain, the smart plan was to adopt a strategy of “flexible adaptation.”  This term comes from a 2010 report issued by the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) – a group assembled by Mayor Bloomberg (see “Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response.”

The Executive Summary of this report recommends the following actions:

Recommendations arising from the NPCC work include a broad range of policy-relevant suggestions, some focused on critical infrastructure and some focused on broader-scale actions, many of which the city and the Task Force are already doing. In addition, the NPCC identified several key areas for further study that are needed to help the city develop a comprehensive, risk- andscience-based adaptation program.

  1. Adopt a risk-based approach to develop Flexible Adaptation Pathways, which includes regular reviews of the city’s adaptation program.
  2. Create a mandate for an ongoing body of experts that provides advice and prepares tools related to climate change adaptation for the City of New York. Areas that could be addressed by this body include regular updates to climate change projections, improved mapping and geographic data, and periodic assessments of climate change impacts and adaptation for New York City to inform a broad spectrum of climate change adaptation policies and programs.
  3. Establish a climate change monitoring program to track and analyze key climate change factors, impacts, and adaptation indicators in New York City, as well as to study relevant advances in research on related topics. This involves creating a network of monitoring systems and organizations and a region-wide indicator database for analysis.
  4.  Include multiple layers of government and awide range of public and private stakeholder experts to build buy-in and crucial partnerships for coordinated adaptation strategies. Include the private sector in these interactions.
  5. Conduct a review of standards and codes to evaluate their revision to meet climate challenges, or the development of new codes and regulations that increase the city’s resilience toclimate change. Develop design standards, specifications, and regulations that take climate change into account, and hence are prospective in nature rather than retrospective. New York City should work with FEMA and NOAA to update the FIRMs and SLOSH maps to include climate change projections.
  6. Work with the insurance industry to facilitate the use of risk-sharing mechanisms to address climate change impacts.
  7. Focus on strategies for responding to near- and mid-term incremental changes (e.g., temperature and precipitation changes) as well as long-term low-probability, high-impact events (e.g., catastrophic storm surges exacerbated by sea level rise).
  8. Pay particular attention to early win–win adaptation strategies, such as those that have near-term benefits or meet multiple goals (greenhouse gas mitigation, emergency planning, etc.).

For the fall 2012 semester, which started at the end of August, I decided to base my course curriculum on investigating the City’s response to the report. In October, when Sandy hit, the course’s focus shifted instead to an analysis of Sandy’s impact, with some references to the report. Students published their results on the class webpage.

The essence of the flexible response, as defined in the report, was to create a mechanism to continuously reevaluate the likelihood of various future impacts and adjust adaptation policy accordingly. It seemed a rational answer in the face of an uncertain future. In reality, however, as class work showed, not much was done to build the infrastructure to actually implement such a plan. For a short time, our experience of Sandy’s drastic effects has shifted our collective attention to this debate, leading us to question the wisdom of after-the fact worse-case scenario adaptation. We find ourselves facing a similar quandary to the one that now takes place in Tokyo. The potential for equally disastrous future weather events is certainly there. The question is: how will we respond?

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Terrain Part 1: Doing Nothing and Fixing Whatever Happens.

Posted on June 4, 2013 by climatechangefork

Some of the recent headlines illustrate the broad terrain of tradeoffs and consequences we must navigate in deciding the policies for Earth’s future, in which our children and grandchildren will have to live.

This quote from ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson, speaking to ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, spread rapidly through the blogosphere: “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?” Tillerson’s version of humanity’s suffering refers to the inconvenience implied by minimizing our carbon footprints by requiring and enforcing a decreased reliance on fossil fuel. I am not sure yet, however, what he includes in his definition of “humanity.” He was further quoted on a previous occasion, referring to the “manageable” risks of climate change:

As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.

ExxonMobile’s direct involvement in funding active climate change deniers, has long been a topic of some controversy, and statements such as this do little to calm such arguments.

By “engineering solutions,” Mr. Tillerson probably means geoengineering. In a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times (5/27/2013) titled, “Geoengineering – Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?” Clive Hamilton tries to examine the ethical aspects of geoengineering.  He describes the concept in the following way:

Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming or offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity.

But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass.

While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed.

After examining some technical aspects of the issue, he focuses on the central dilemma:

The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil- fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices.

But then he proceeds to the crux of the issue:

How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand.

Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now.

Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear.

The uncertainty implicit in future predictions of climate change is a major research focus throughout the world, and a significant aspect of my blog. The main component of this uncertainty is estimating the climate sensitivity, which requires projections of humanity’s future population growth, economic growth, energy use and the specific energy sources. As I described in my November 26, 2012 blog, we use the IPAT equation (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology) to calculate this. Climate sensitivity is defined as the average global temperature increase that is predicted to take effect due to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doubling from the pre-Industrial Revolution levels of 280 ppmv (parts per million volume). We have now passed the 400 ppmv marker.

The uncertainty of climate sensitivity is quantitatively estimated in the figure above (repeated from my December 10, 2012 blog). One of the major causes of the lack of certainty is insufficient understanding of non-linearities in the climate system (tipping points). Here the uncertainties are focused on ongoing processes in a well defined system – our planet. The uncertainties in geoengineering are compounded when we take into account that such ventures have never been attempted on such a vast scale.  We are familiar with the concept of unintended consequences, but it is hard to comprehend their potential magnitude in an undertaking this large. In this instance, we’re talking about our planet; if we mess it up, we have nowhere else to go.

 

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments