New Report: “12 Years to Avoid Climate Doomsday”
A new major climate study was released this week, compiled by 90 scientists from 40 nations (part of the continuing UN-IPCC efforts). Headlines in mainstream media ranged from the often sensationalist New York Post above, “Terrifying climate change warning: 12 years until we’re doomed” to the normally cautious and conservative Forbes Magazine “Trump Ignores The Impacts of Climate Change At His Peril — And Ours”
CNN’s lead was “Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn” and Britain’s BBC News “Final Call to save the World from Catastrophe.” I have had numerous requests in the last 24 hours to give my take. The questions are:
- What are the key findings of the report?
- Is this doomsday deadline exaggerated?
- What can “we” do?
Generally it is a very credible report that looks at the question of whether keeping the warming to 2.7degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) is still possible. For context, we have already warmed the planet by about 1.8 degrees F, or one degree C. At the Paris Climate Conference in 2015, the goal was set at 2 degrees C, but many nations, particularly the low-lying island nations pleaded that even that goal was doomsday as they would disappear beneath the waves. As a result, a set of more aggressive targets were created. This study looked at whether those are achievable.
Simply stated, the study finds that it is very doubtful that humanity can achieve the goal to limit the warming to a further half degree C, or nine tenths of a degree F. The report says that without EXTREMELY aggressive policies to shift from coal and petroleum to renewable sources, and without some scalable technology to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, they find that we could pass those milestones as early as 2030, or by mid-century at the latest. I think that part is correct.
To reach that goal, they have calculated that we would need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030; coal use would have to be reduced from 40% to less than 7% by 2050. Their skepticism about us achieving those numbers is understandable. The world is making great progress on renewable energy. Yet national policies from the United States to Australia, to Canada, and likely Brazil seem unable to push forward aggressively. China is a special category. While they presently are the top contributor to greenhouse gases, they are implementing very aggressive policies to transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
Are the “Red Lines” Valid?
One aspect of this analysis that I have an issue with is the concept that there is a specific number or line at which we reach catastrophe. In reality, it is the proverbial slippery slope. And we have been sliding down this slippery slope for decades. Trying to define the point of no return is ambiguous at best. Whether the “red line” is the 2.7 degrees F, or the original 3.6 degrees F, both are misleading. I do not know a single climate expert that would say that 1.9 is tolerable and 2.1 is true catastrophe. So why do we keep drawing these ‘lines in the sand’? Because that is how we think.
Without establishing goals and red-lines, we seem unable to change our path. So, with that reality about human social and economic behavior, I can accept that allowing the planet to warm from the present +1.8 degrees above “normal” up to 2.7 degrees will bring on catastrophe. Just look at the changing weather patterns from record-breaking rainfall, explosive wildfires, deadly drought at the current level of warming. It is the extra heat energy in the system that is the driving force. A fifty percent increase over the present level of warming will likely cause MUCH worse climatic changes. The effects have amplifiers and tipping points.
Sea Level Rise Understated
One place where I think this new report understates the problem is with its characterization of sea level rise. It continues to follow the methodology of UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As I have regularly explained, their approach is extremely conservative. Even this new study references tenths of a meter, as the variable for sea level rise. That’s about three inches which I believe is terribly understated. Why are they so cautious?
To project that the ocean could rise by a certain amount, they insist on there being a high probability and that the numbers be specific enough to pass some high confidence threshold. However, this is faulty thinking as we frequently avoid risk and change behavior when there is less than high probability of something happening. Imagine there was a ten percent chance of something injuring or killing you. Would you dare take the risk? Of course not.
So, to recall the big problem of future sea level rise — Antarctica and Greenland combined are twice the size of the United States and covered by an average of two miles (3 km) of ice. Predicting exactly how that block of ice will melt is impossible. So the IPCC tends to take the lower amount and describe the “uncertainty” in footnotes. Unfortunately, the effect of that is to understate the likelihood of what could happen. (For more, see my post from five years ago “Government Sea Level Prediction Low and Misleading — Again.” )
What to do?
We have to make clear to elected leaders that addressing the challenge of climate change is job #1. The problem is that in nearly all surveys of voter issues, climate change — lumped in with “environment” comes in far down the list of priorities. For the vast majority of people top priorities run the range from health care, social security benefits, abortion policy, education, defense spending, taxes, immigration, etc. Intentionally or not, climate change is put beneath those issues.
Obviously, if we keep signaling our elected representatives that climate change is a relatively low priority, sooner or later the warming planet, the melting ice, worse weather, rising seas, rampant wildfires, etc. will become dominant issues. The problem with climate change or global warming is that when it becomes catastrophic, it can no longer be fixed within a lifetime. It is an unusual problem. It warrants drawing a line in the sand now.
To deal with this, one organization that I encourage everyone to join is Citizens Climate Lobby. Their single focus is to get the message to elected officials that aggressive, market-based mechanism’s to stop the increase in greenhouse gases is priority #1. Visit them at www.citizensclimatelobby.org
For those wanting more information about today’s report, I suggest the New York Times or Huffington Post Also Greenpeace has done a great summary document. [Click]