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

Warning Signs and Tipping Points

Posted on May 28, 2013 by climatechangefork

Erica Goode’s recent article in the New York Times (NYT – March 15, 2013), “Focusing on Violence Before It Happens,” describes a growing effort to identify and prevent major catastrophic events such as school violence. Two paragraphs from the article summarize the issue:

The young men had been brought to the attention of the School Threat Assessment Response Team program overseen by Dr. Beliz, one of the most intensive efforts in the nation to identify the potential for school violence and take steps to prevent it. The program, an unusual collaboration involving county mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies and schools, was developed by the Los Angeles Police Department in 2007, after the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University, and was taken countywide in 2009 by Dr. Beliz, a deputy director of the mental health department.

In the national debate that has followed the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, much of the focus has been on regulating firearms. But many law enforcement and mental health experts believe that developing comprehensive approaches to prevention is equally important. In many cases, they note, the perpetrators of such violence are troubled young people who have signaled their distress to others and who might have been stopped had they received appropriate help.

The government in the US is now starting to believe that by paying attention to warning signs, properly trained professionals can help prevent or mitigate disasters before they reach their catastrophic tipping points. The logical next step is to adopt the same preventative approach to the planetary tipping points that we predict will result from human caused (anthropogenic) climate change.

I have described climate change tipping points in previous blogs (June 25, 2012 and January 21, April 9, 16, 2013). My April 9 blog describes tipping points in the following way:

In a recent survey in Science magazine (Marten Scheffer et al. (11 co-authors) – Science – 19 October 2012, Vol 338, p. 344), Tipping Point was defined as a “Catastrophic Bifurcation,” a term which was taken from mathematical Chaos Theory, and has its own well developed definition. Bifurcation indicates a splitting into two branches; the “fork” in the title of both my book and this blog, refers to the same phenomenon. Tipping Points are predictable, an aspect that attracts a great deal of interest for obvious reasons. The financial markets have seen intense activity in this area (see James Owen Weatherall’s The Physics of Wall Street, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013), with attempts to predict upcoming financial bubbles. The main premise behind the ability to predict bifurcation is that one monitors the driving forces that tend to restore a system to its state of equilibrium. As the system approaches the tipping point, these restoring forces tend to decrease until they completely disappear.

An image can do wonders to illustrate a concept, and this one accurately depicts our collective reaction to climate change.

 Bose Noise Reduction Headphones - Waterfall Ad

I found this image (through Google Image Search) on a blog that illustrates and analyzes various advertising concepts. This ad for Bose sound cancellation headphones asserts that they are powerful enough to prevent the guy from hearing the approaching waterfall (Bose strongly advises not trying their product in these settings).

We can anticipate a waterfall long before we reach it, due to the noise and the strong prevailing currents. In fact, we can usually detect the signs early enough to row toward shore and prevent the fall that would be inevitable were we to keep a steady course. If, however, we ignore the warnings, or are ignorant enough not to recognize them, we pay the price. This holds true for collectives as well as individuals.

For a physicist, projecting individuals’ destructive tipping points seems a much more imprecise exercise than doing so for the global tipping points of the physical environment. At least in the latter case, the projections are based on well-defined, if not always fully understood, mechanisms. But as a country, after seeing the immediate effects of violence on our youths, we are willing to take chances and make the effort to implement such assessments because even one clear success might be worth it. Applying the same spirit to planetary tipping points has the potential to save many, many more children in the long run.

Posted in Climate Change, Education | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adaptive Rebuilding

Posted on May 21, 2013 by climatechangefork

Hurricane Sandy, which struck the East Coast of the United States more than six months ago (October 2012), was the second-costliest hurricane in the recorded history of the United States . While climate scientists said that the storm was not directly caused by climate change, they did correlate it, and its intensity with the increasingly frequent extreme climatic events and rising sea levels that we associate with climate change. This, in turn, has been linked to human choices of energy sources. (Nov 5, 13 & 19, 2012; Jan 14, Apr 30, 2013 blogs). We have just passed an important marker in surpassing 400 parts per million in the Keeling Curve that measures the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Meanwhile, the frequency of extreme weather events is predicted to rise. Society’s response to the threats is focused on attempts to mitigate and adapt. I have written extensively about both, throughout this blog, recently (April 30 blog) focusing on some selective steps toward adaptation being taken by individuals that can afford them. There is an ongoing effort along the East Coast to rebuild after the destruction caused by Sandy – some of this effort is being pursued in a way that is designed to minimize future damage caused by such storms. I am naming such efforts adaptive rebuilding. It is a positive development that has the potential to be applied in various forms in poorer countries, while avoiding the polarizing class struggle the Hamptons are facing.

One of the most effective efforts toward bringing about adaptation is to create disincentives for people to live in areas prone to flooding (Zone A in the NYC lingo). I believe this technique should be globalized as widely as possible. A recent article by Tara Siegel Bernard (NYT-May 10, 2013) titled, “Rebuilding After Sandy, but With Costly New Rules,” summarized the post-Sandy situation. A new federal flood insurance law that was issued last year has resulted in a sharp rise in some premiums.

A specific example with numbers taken from this article demonstrates the new strategy:

The insurance premiums are determined, in part, by where your home stands relative to that base. The higher you go, of course, the less you pay. Consider a single-family home in a zone with a moderate to high risk of a flood, that has a flood policy with $250,000 of coverage: if the home is four feet below the base flood elevation, the homeowner would pay an annual premium of about $9,500, according to FEMA. But if the home was elevated to the base, the premium would cost $1,410. Hoist the home three feet higher, and the premium would drop to $427.

A recent map of New York City’s Hurricane evacuation zones is shown below:

New York governor Andrew Cuomo also recently announced (NYT-Feb 4, 2013) that he wants to spend as much as $400 million (obtained from the federal recovery money) to buy and raze damaged homes in the flood plains of New York State, with the aim to convert them into parks, bird sanctuaries, dunes or open beaches.

There is no compulsion here, but it is a very strong encouragement to get out of the water. The population of New York City is more than 8 million people, while that of the metropolitan tri-state area is more than 20 million. As we can see from the map above, the government is trying to put into place economic incentives for many people to move away from the shore.

The motivations for these efforts are mainly economical: storms of Sandy’s magnitude cost a lot of money- both for individuals, and all forms of government. As the frequency of such storms increases, there is a growing reluctance to pay. The payment essentially amounts to a transfer of money from people who live in safe, higher ground areas, to those that like to live near the sea (or were forced to move there in the past when society was not aware of the dangers).

The direct damage to property is not the only issue. More than two years after the tsunami hit Japan, rubble from the storm continues to wash out to the West Coast of the United States and the coastal areas of many other countries. Heavily populated, flood-prone sea shores become rife with potential debris, while the oceans provide a transit system to spread the damage around.

Many of the available flood maps are old and out of date. Future predictions of flood zones are even more uncertain. It is one issue to devise policies to encourage large population shifts away from existing flood areas; trying to draw flood maps based on projections of future floods is completely different issue.

That said, incentives to move away from projected flood zones, combined with frequent updates of the areas included in these projections, are a good first step towards flexible adaptation- one that can and should be implemented globally to include as many people as possible.

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

Bilingualism

Posted on May 14, 2013 by climatechangefork

The semester is almost over, so I needed some sort of challenging take-home message for my Climate Change course. The course is part of an upper-tier general education program, open to students of all disciplines.  One aspect that I have found challenging to convey to my students has been the extent to which the global population (now 7 billion and growing) affects our physical environment. We as humans have become an important part of the physical environment and any understanding of the physical environment requires understanding of humans and any understanding of the human society requires understanding of the physical environment. Geologists informally call this the Anthropocene– an era of heightened human impact on the Earth. We developed the language of Science to understand and convey our physical environment; likewise, we use economics to describe essential parts of human interaction with regards to material prosperity. If we want to understand and guide our behavior in the Anthropocene, we need to be as bilingual as possible in these two languages. That does not necessarily require fluency- just that we know enough to be able to talk and listen across these disciplinary barriers.

As it happens, this week’s New York Times was helpful to a guy like me who comes from the science end of this spectrum. A magazine article by Adam Davidson, entitled, “Boom, Bust or What? Larry Summers and Glenn Hubbard Square Off on Our Economic Future” (NYT-May 5, 2013) has tried to capture the essence of two apparently opposite economic approaches by interviewing the two influential economists. I have included a few illustrative snippets below:

Summers segued to an explanation for how he chose a career in economics. The field, he said, provided tools that can be used to make the world, or a basketball team, better. The key is reading data and recognizing what it tells you.

[Hubbard] ticked off a series of empires: Rome, medieval China, Spain, 19th-century Britain — and argued that they fell because their leadership ossified and squashed free trade, technological progress or other forces of economic growth.

In the late ’70s and early ’80s, they were young academic stars, part of a revolution in economics taking place at Harvard. New computer technology and large data sets allowed them to explore with unprecedented precision how government policy affected the economic behavior of people and companies. Many of their peers went on to become influential public figures. Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke and Greg Mankiw were all at Harvard or nearby M.I.T. around the same time. But by the 1990s, it was Hubbard and Summers who, above others, translated the leading economic research into Washington policy.

Through their own work and that of their protégés, much of the economic policy now advocated by moderate Democrats can be traced to the ideas of Summers. (“I’m progressive, but not of the ideological left,” Summers told me.) And many Republican policies, especially dealing with taxation, can be credited, in some way, to Hubbard on the right. (“I’m a pragmatist,” he says of his conservatism. “I’m not doctrinaire.”) The space between their views roughly defines the American center.

Hubbard argues that the imperative of the moment — our 3-point shot — is rolling back federal benefits for wealthier and middle-class Americans. If it’s done right, he says, taxes will fall and “more entrepreneurs will start businesses. Corporate investment would rise, creating more jobs. Individuals will work harder and save more. The country would have faster growth. The benefits are quite broad.” If we stay the present course, though, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will keep growing unchecked, and the United States, paralyzed by debt, could burn like Rome. Summers, who once told me “I don’t do apocalypse,” acknowledged that some entitlement reform is inevitable, but that it is not the real adjustment that needs to be made. “That is playing defense,” he said. “It is essential but insufficient.” Instead, Summers wants the country to start playing offense: the crisis that demands our attention now, he says, is long-term unemployment. Millions of Americans have been out of work for more than half a year, many for much longer; not only are they suffering, but the overall economy is poorer without their contribution. Summers argues that the U.S. government can address this problem in several ways, especially by committing to more government spending, notably on infrastructure.

For two men who are so smart and analytical, neither could fully articulate how they came to understand their field in such fundamentally different ways. During our many conversations, each referred to opinions shaped early in life. Summers and Hubbard were born in the 1950s, but they had remarkably different upbringings. Summers’s parents were well-respected economists at the University of Pennsylvania. Two of his uncles won Nobel Prizes in the field, including Paul Samuelson, who advised President Kennedy and wrote “Economics,” an enormously influential textbook. His family and their friends were committed Democrats who celebrated the expansionary programs under Lyndon Johnson. Some of them even helped design those programs.

Hubbard, on the other hand, grew up in a remote agricultural town in Central Florida. His parents were public-school teachers. The programs that were beloved by Summers’s family struck many Southerners as another sign of government growing too large. Hubbard told me that a favorite book in high school was Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” a 1944 treatise against big government that remains a sacred text among conservatives, including Paul Ryan.

These two men are of the same age, with the same educational background, and underlying tool sets based on data, yet they have come to completely opposite conclusions as to how society should run its economy. The only noticeable difference that Davidson was able to identify was the environment in which they grew up. They do seem to agree that society needs economic growth to function, though they argue about how to achieve the growth.

There are many commonly cited justifications for our supposed constant need for economic growth, including the demand to satisfy growing populations, and the perception that no-growth means decline (the decline of the big empires in Hubbard’s argument). I have written extensively on the perceived need for economic growth (see the February 11 blog), positing that no growth does not have to equal decline, but can instead mean an effort toward a productive, stable and flexible steady-state. The figure below describes three United Nation scenarios for population growth.

 Graph of three population projections based on different fertility assumptions

The most credible of these scenarios, and the one to withstand validation over many years, is the medium growth scenario that forecasts asymptotic stabilization over the second half of the century (in other words, the population levels off to a semi-constant number). To an ignorant physicist, Summers’ and Hubbard’s arguments, as presented by Davidson, look a lot like using hand-picked data to justify the heavily loaded philosophies they cultivated during their upbringing with heavily discounted future (February 4th blog). A correction in outlooks is badly needed.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lessons from Pompeii

Posted on May 7, 2013 by climatechangefork

A recent article in the New York Times by Rachel Donaldo and  Elisabetta Povoledo (NYT, April 21 2013) titled  “The Latest Threat to Pompeii’s Treasures: Italy’s Red Tape,” starts with the following:

POMPEII, Italy — Destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79, Pompeii survived excavation starting in the 18th century and has stoically borne the wear and tear of millions of modern-day tourists. But now, its deep-hued frescoes, brick walls and elegant tile mosaics appear to be at risk from an even greater threat: the bureaucracy of the Italian state. In recent years, collapses at the site have alarmed conservationists, who warn that this ancient Roman city is dangerously exposed to the elements — and is poorly served by the red tape, the lack of strategic planning and the limited personnel of the site’s troubled management.

The site’s decline has captured the attention of the European Union, which began a $137 million effort in February that aims to balance preservation with accessibility to tourists. Called the Great Pompeii Project, the effort also seeks to foster a culture-driven economy in an area dominated by the Neapolitan Mafia.

The rest of the article describes the difficulties encountered in the efforts to save the site.

Pompeii is not unique in this respect. Almost every other major archeological site, especially those that receive a major influx of cruise ship tourism, suffers from the corresponding degradation and damage. These are, of course, a major concern to everybody that cares about preserving our common heritage. Many of these sites do not have access to the same extensive public intervention to curb damage that Pompeii enjoys.

Pompeii is one of the 962 UNESCO sites (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)  worldwide. UNESCO designates these sites as having special cultural or physical significance to humanity’s common heritage. The legal protection of the sites is anchored in international law:

UNESCO designation as a World Heritage Site provides prima facie evidence that such culturally sensitive sites are legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its Articles, Protocols and Customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law. Thus, the Geneva Convention treaty promulgates:

Article 53. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS AND OF PLACES OF WORSHIP. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:

(a) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

(b) To use such objects in support of the military effort;

(c) To make such objects the object of reprisals.

Unfortunately, our planet as a whole is not a designated UNESCO site. Planet Earth is not only of special cultural and physical significance to humanity’s common heritage; it is also essential to our continued existence. Sci-Fi visions of an evacuated Earth notwithstanding, we have no other place to go. Last year, our planet’s “visitor” count reached 7 billion- a growing number that leaves an irreversible collective impact. UNESCO designation does not shift responsibility for the designated sites from their sovereign countries, but it can provide some financial help when needed. The planet doesn’t have any centralized authority responsible for keeping its integrity intact to provide a suitable home for future generations. We badly need one.   

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

Scaling up from the Hamptons to the World

Posted on April 30, 2013 by climatechangefork

Michael Schwartz’s New York Times article entitled “Dispute in the Hamptons Set Off by Effort to Hold Back Ocean” (NYT, April 18, 2013) starts with the following:

Soon after Hurricane Sandy hit last fall, Joshua Harris, a billionaire hedge fund founder and an owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, began to fear that his $25 million home on the water here might fall victim to the next major storm. So he installed a costly defense against incoming waves: a shield of large metal plates on the beach, camouflaged by sand.

His neighbor, Mark Rachesky, another billionaire hedge fund founder, put up similar fortifications between his home and the surf. Chris Shumway, who closed his $8 billion hedge fund two years ago, trucked in boulders the size of Volkswagens.

Across a section of this wealthy town, some residents, accustomed to having their way in the business world, are now trying to hold back the ocean.

But the flurry of construction on beachfront residences since the hurricane is touching off bitter disputes over the environment, real estate and class.

A White House Office of Science and Technology Policy blog summarizes the conclusions of a report that was recently submitted to the President, regarding the steps that the United States needs to take to confront climate change:

Today the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a letter to the President describing six key components the advisory group believes should be central to the Administration’s strategy for addressing climate change…

The six key components are:

  • Focus on national preparedness for climate change, which can help decrease damage from extreme weather events now and speed recovery from future damage;
  • Continue efforts to decarbonize the economy, with emphasis on the electricity sector;
  • Level the playing field for clean-energy and energy-efficiency technologies by removing regulatory obstacles, addressing market failures, adjusting tax policies, and providing time-limited subsidies for clean energy when appropriate;
  • Sustain research on next-generation clean-energy technologies and remove obstacles for their eventual deployment;
  • Take additional steps to establish U.S. leadership on climate change internationally; and
  • Conduct an initial Quadrennial Energy Review.

The PCAST’s first recommendation addresses adaptation. The other five recommendations involve mitigation. To various degrees, all six recommendations require the spending of money now, to prevent future disasters. In today’s fiscal environment, spending public money is not a popular activity. Adaptation and mitigation, however, are funded in different ways.

We all share a common atmosphere, so not only do mitigation efforts need to be globally coordinated, they must also involve a universal transition to more sustainable energy sources. Mitigation’s goal, after all, is to minimize the anthropogenic (human-caused) changes that result from using fossil fuels as our dominant energy sources.

Adaptation, on the other hand, is mainly a local activity, and therefore funded locally- it also comes with the open ended question – adaptation to what? The IPCC’s projection for a business as usual scenario estimates a 6oC global temperature rise (a change of 10.8oF) toward the end of the century, while an environmentally friendly scenario estimates the global temperature rise as only 2.5oC (4.5oF) over the same time period (September 24 and December 10 blogs). The two projections portray very different worlds. The 2.5oC scenario depicts a world where adaptation is not only possible, but has clear, fixed results; the 6oC scenario describes a world where open-ended adaptation has reached its limits, and the global population is at the mercy of drastic climate change.

The Hampton billionaires can build sea gates in front of their multi million dollar houses and, for a while, prevent damage to their estates. Physics will still come into effect, however, and the rising sea will only take a small detour from the sea gates to hit surrounding, less protected, structures. This is what has resulted from efforts to re-protect New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, and in every other place that has tried to implement similar local protection from sea-level or lake-level rise.

The Hamptons case can be extended globally: rich countries on a GDP scale, will be able, if they so choose, to temporarily protect themselves and shift the impact to poorer countries that do not have the resources to do so. The majority of the world’s population is, and increasingly continues to be, made up of citizens of what we consider developing countries. If they feel, as the “regular” citizens of the Hamptons do, that they are being ignored and taken advantage of, global mitigation efforts will never work and the recommendations by the PCAST will turn out to be internally contradictory. There needs to be some level of democracy and equality in adaptation for mitigation to function properly- we are all part of an inter-connected system, and will therefore be affected by the overall changes that occur in years to come.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Earth Day

Posted on April 23, 2013 by climatechangefork

Earth Day is an annual day, observed on April 22, in which the World demonstrates its support of environmental protection. It also happens that it is my wife’s birthday and the one-year anniversary of this blog. 🙂 It is a special day that needs special celebration on all three fronts.

The day was recognized by the United Nation in 2009 and is celebrated in one form or another worldwide. The preamble to the United Nation’s declaration is given below:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROCLAIMS 22 APRIL ‘INTERNATIONAL MOTHER EARTH DAY’

ADOPTING BY CONSENSUS BOLIVIA-LED RESOLUTION

In Address, Bolivia’s President Says 60 Years after Human Rights, Declaration ‘Mother Earth Is Now, Finally, Having Her Rights Recognized’

As the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed today International Mother Earth Day, Bolivian President Evo Morales Ayma applauded the Members of the world body who had “taken a historic stand for Mother Earth” by acknowledging humanity’s common interest in the protection of the planet and its environment.

“Sixty years after adopting the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], Mother Earth is now, finally, having her rights recognized,” said President Morales, immediately following the Assembly’s unanimous adoption of a resolution designating 22 April each year as International Mother Earth Day (A/63/L.69).

Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann thanked Bolivia for having taken the lead in bringing the resolution to the Assembly and added that, by declaring the International Day, Member States recognized their responsibility, as called for in the Rio Declaration, adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the “Earth Summit,” to promote harmony with nature and the planet to achieve a just balance among economic, social and environmental needs of the present and future generations of humanity.

By the text, the Assembly acknowledged that “the Earth and its ecosystems are our home,” and expressed its conviction that, in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environmental needs of present and future generations, “it is necessary to promote harmony with nature and the Earth.”

Earth Day is coordinated globally through the Earth Day Network. On the Earth Day Network one can find various suggestions how to celebrate the day. These suggestions include:

  1. Become a climate reporter by uploading a picture of yourself being impacted by climate change or taking action against it and thus helping the network to construct a global mosaic.
  2. Protect our clean air by telling the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to enforce the “Clean Air Act.”
  3. Recycle your E-waste. Every year, thousands of old electronic devices are thrown into landfills, when they could have been recycled.
  4. Once you have decided what to do, submit your commitment through the network.

In order to honor the three events that I simultaneously celebrate, I have decided to try to dig deeper. One of the earlier manifestations of Earth Day was proposed by Senator Gaylord Nelson and was first celebrated on April 22, 1970 as an environmental “teach-in” day. Following this tradition, I feel that the best way to celebrate, with potentially the greatest impact, is to spread the word not by posting on a network on the internet, but through discussion with family and friends.

Yesterday, I had a class on Climate Change at my school. We talked about Earth Day, with a special emphasis on what we as individuals can do, as well as how we can convince our family and friends to do something of their own. We also discussed trying to get these friends and family to try to spread the word to their respective family and friends. I asked the students to write a comment to this blog that describes what they did and the reaction that they have experienced. I am calling on all of you, dear readers, to join my students in this effort.

My birthday is not far away (toward the end of May). It will be a good opportunity to dedicate another blog to this effort to find out the concrete results (and to remember that pledges and promises are not equivalent to actions).

Posted in Climate Change | 22 Comments