The Centennial Celebration of the Paris Agreement Arrives 99 Years Early

Early in 2016, shortly after the United Nations-sponsored meeting that culminated in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, this writer posted a fable characterizing a fictional centennial commemoration of the 2015 Agreement in a scenario in which use of fossil fuels had continued unabated during that 100-year interval.  The fable is reproduced below:

The Centennial Commemoration of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement

A Fable

It was December 2115, the hundredth anniversary of the agreement to a climate treaty reached among all the members of the United Nations, in Paris.  The members of the Petrex extended family gathered to mark the occasion.  By that time, three to four generations after the event, the clan had grown considerably, and had established for itself a fully self-sufficient environment inside its terradome.  For the occasion the space was opulently fitted out with an artificial lake in which were moored several model oil rigs.  The pipe linking the rigs to shore ended in an internally illuminated fountain gurgling champagne.  Scattered about the artificially-turfed land areas were several working model oil wells erected in mud fields of black caviar, pumping dark chocolate and coffee liqueurs, and other reminders of the black gold that had started the Petrex fortune, more than one hundred years earlier.

Back then, the clan founder, Malvolio Petrex, chairman and chief executive officer of the largest oil company at the time, had come to realize the inconsistencies of his, and his company’s, position.  They were, at one and the same time, using all their financial power and political influence to perpetuate, indeed to expand, the use of the oil they extracted from the ground, while correctly realizing that their exploitative activities were worsening the global warming already well under way.  After all, the Paris agreement itself was reached in response to expert scientific findings, reported for at least the preceding twenty years, that burning oil and other fossil fuels, such as those his company and others were pulling from the ground, added irreversibly to the atmospheric burden of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.

Malvolio Petrex knew that global warming was going to get much worse in the coming years, because his company and others were continuing to produce fossil fuels at ever-increasing rates of growth, year after year.  After all, more and more energy was needed to fuel the demands of economies all over the world, being used to expand their economies and raise the poorest peoples of the world out of poverty. 

He wasn’t too worried about his own welfare, though.  Thanks to his immeasurable wealth, he already had peppered several secure estates around the world, in various climatic and ecological settings.  But as any other dynastic figure that we may encounter throughout history, he was concerned about the wellbeing of his progeny.  He knew that the travesties his business activities were creating would worsen after he was gone, impacting the lives and indeed the safety of his scions.  He understood that worsening warming would lead to economic and political unrest among the impoverished and others less well off than he because they would be suffering the harmful effects of warming: flooding in some regions; droughts, wildfires and famine in others; and inexorable sea level rise driving millions around the world from their traditional homes and livelihoods.

And so he embarked on a program to develop self-contained environments for himself and his family.  The environments would insulate his family from the unpleasantness of dealing with the effects of climate change by keeping the open atmosphere out, and the family’s living quarters and areas for amusing themselves in.  The first models were installed on the grounds of his existing estates, and were relatively modest. 

Now, one hundred years later, after many rounds of development and improvement, this Petrex estate was enveloped in its own protective terradome.  It was a large, fully enclosed environment covering almost one square mile, incorporating the estate’s mansion, its recreational areas, and fields producing much of its food needs.  The terradome insulated the estate from the worst “weird” climate and weather events brought on by the extreme warming that the world had attained by then, as well as keeping a portion of the sun’s warming light from penetrating to the land within it.  The Petrex family had practically no need to travel outside the terradome; it was almost entirely self-sufficient.

As a result, they were insulated as well from the harms and damages induced by the warmer climate that most of the peoples of the world were suffering.  Or maybe they knew and, just like Malvolio Petrex a hundred years earlier, chose to ignore it.  The population at large was subjected to far worse conditions than Petrex’s world had experienced one hundred years earlier: debilitating heat waves and droughts, intense storms bringing on severe flooding, encroaching oceans because of the severe degree of sea level rise, all brought on by the excess global warming that burning fossil fuels induced. 

By the time of the centennial anniversary the opportunity for effective action to combat global warming had long passed.

 

                                          *         *         *        

The fabled centennial celebration of the Paris Agreement has already arrived, 99 years early.  The newly elected U. S. President, Donald Trump, is a man whose wealth could well serve as a model for the patriarch Malvolio Petrex.  He shows his wealth at least partly by erecting palatial residences and developing exclusive golf courses around the globe. 

Mr. Trump has called global warming a hoax.  Now as president he is implementing policies and appointing people to important cabinet positions who share his sentiment.  From the outset, he is reversing important initiatives undertaken by his predecessor, who had set in motion important policies that curb emissions of greenhouse gases.   

Here is a partial list of President Trump’s actions and policy positions:

·        He appointed Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Instead of having an interest in protecting the environment, Mr. Pruitt is eliminating rules that preserve our natural world.  In his previous position as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, he repeatedly sued the EPA seeking to overturn its regulations that protect aspects of our environment, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Now he is the Administrator of that selfsame agency.  The Los Angeles Times writes “The Republican dogma of unrestrained economic exploitation drives the president and his EPA chief. As a result, climate science has become a heretical activity.”

·        Among fossil fuels coal emits the most carbon dioxide (per amount of heat obtained) when burned.  So its use should be limited as much as possible in order to reduce emissions.  But Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke ordered that a ban on mining coal on federal lands, put in place by former President Obama, be rescinded.  The order followed through on President Trump’s overall goal of increasing American energy independence.

·        PresidentTrump ordered a review of all policies deemed to interfere with enhancing America’s energy independence.  This includes directing Administrator Pruitt to reconsider the Clean Power Plan, an EPA regulation issued under President Obama that would produce significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power industry.

·        President Trump issued an order to review the program, issued by EPA and the Department of Transportation under President Obama, significantly increasing automobile Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by 2025.  The review may lead to weakening the requirements or slowing the timeline for the CAFE regulation.

·        The budget proposal that President Trump outlined for Fiscal Year 2018 seriously cuts scientific research in many agencies of the U.S. government.  Concerning  activities related to curbing global warming, the proposal completely eliminates the Department of Energy’s Advance Research Projects Agency-Energy unit, reduces research support for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration by 52%, and cuts EPA research by 48% and National Aeronautics and Space Administration earth science research by 6%.  These agencies engage in essential research on the state of the planet’s climate and provide seed or venture funding for development of new technologies that lower greenhouse gas emissions.

President Trump, could easily serve as a model for Malvolio Petrex, since he can insulate himself from the ravages of intensified global warming.  His policies, to be implemented 99 years before the centennial of the Paris Climate Agreement, will have major immediate effects and indirect ramifications that worsen greenhouse gas emissions and lead to more severe harmful consequences of warming.  Yet we may imagine that, with the vast resources he controls, his children, grandchildren and further progeny can create environments for themselves that will protect them from harms and damages that global warming brings.  The same can be said for those he selected to implement his policies. 

But the peoples of the earth, considered at large, are not so lucky.  They can’t easily shield themselves from climatic harm.  They could well be defenseless victims of President Trump’s policies.  The climate framework that Mr. Trump is overthrowing, begun under President Obama and implemented worldwide with his leadership, could make significant progress to minimizing those risks. 

It’s not too late for the Trump Administration to reconsider, and rejoin the compact of the world’s nations to lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

      © 2017 Henry Auer

The Centennial Commemoration of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. II.

A Fable

Paris is sparing no extravagance for the centennial celebration of the 2015 climate agreement, themed “Paris 2115”.  The Eiffel Tower is decked out with the newest efficient lighting fixtures, highlighting the sky blue of the United Nations flag, intermingled with the Tricouleur, the red, white and blue of the French flag.  Laser light shows projecting these colors playfully pierce the air around its spire.

The Étoile and Arc de Triomphe are adorned with exotic vegetation brought from far reaches of the planet, symbols of the preservation of the environment resulting from one hundred years of sustainable climate policies resulting from the agreement.

The most striking aspect of the celebration is that several hundred thousand people from all around the world have descended on The City of Light, to mark the centennial of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.  The 2015 agreement enshrined the goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to under 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the preindustrial temperature, i.e., the temperature before humans began burning fossil fuels.  The agreement also included the more stringent goal of keeping the rise below 1.5ºC as a more ambitious option. 

Just under 200 nations, all the U.N.’s members, joined the agreement.  Now the member nations are celebrating, for they had in fact summoned their resources and achieved the more stringent goal.  This required that restraint and discipline be applied by each nation, each independently of, but in concert with, the constraints developed by every other nation.  The 2015 agreement made these constraints voluntary, nation by nation.  It is remarkable that the member nations all accepted the responsibility of fulfilling their pledges, with records and validation open for all to see.  Indeed, since the original 2015 pledges were deemed inadequate to attain this goal, the nations repeatedly reconvened every five years, and intensified their efforts by developing ever more stringent reduction pledges.  The centennial we are now celebrating honors these pledge extensions.  Without these extra efforts we could not have kept the global temperature from increasing as little as it has today.

How did this come about?  After all, the energy needed for industrialization and raising living standards in developing countries, obtained almost entirely from burning fossil fuels, had underpinned their headlong rush to economic growth for more than a century.  The fossil fuel industry was a significant fraction of the world economy, and the fuel companies exerted their considerable political power to maintain the status quo, extracting ever more fossil fuels each year.  This path, called “business-as-usual”, would have brought the world to an average temperature rise of about 4ºC, a truly devastating result.

Governments the world over, working in collaboration with the fossil fuel companies and other segments of the economy, transformed the world’s energy sector.  Governments and company managements, realizing the dangers of continuing along a business-as-usual path, transformed their political frameworks and business models.  The companies came to realize that there was profit to be gained by developing and deploying renewable energy sources, and redirected their development budgets accordingly.  New research and great economies of scale made solar and wind energy, for example, economical yet highly profitable.  Energy storage was optimized with new battery compositions and physical storage modes.  People began to see new beauty in renewable energy installations.  In the meanwhile, biotechnology researchers developed genetically modified crop plants that withstand the stresses of heat and drought more effectively than the old wild strains.  Research ingenuity also optimized yields of biofuels to provide all the needs of the growing airline industry.

Our land transportation has also been revolutionized.  Self-driving vehicles now navigate e-highways, minimizing the need for extra weight to protect us from crashes.  They are powered by newly developed highly efficient renewable energy sources.

Sadly, several small island nations that signed on to the agreement in 2015 no longer exist, because their islands were swallowed up by rising seas over the intervening one hundred years.  Already by 2015 sea level had been rising because, averaged over the seasons of the year, more ice melted from polar ice masses into the ocean than was deposited by fresh snow and ice.  Rising seas were already locked in by then.  Indeed, by 2015 ice loss had been accelerating because temperatures over the ice masses were rising rapidly.  Now as we fete the centennial, many coastal regions around the world have been lost to ocean inundation.

Pingali, Richard and Hailong met each other last night at the Korean pavilion.  Paris 2115 is organized around these centers, representing each nation of the UNFCCC agreement, all around the city.  Each one displays highlights of the environmental and sustainability contributions they have made in the past hundred years that brought us to this week’s celebration.  The three new friends are circulating among the pavilions, trying to take in as many as they can, from countries large and small. 

The celebration reaches its peak tomorrow, as major personalities from the UNFCCC and various nations speak about the significance of this occasion, and the way forward.  Of course these speeches will be streamed live as holographic displays in all the pavilions, so that all the celebrants can experience the immediacy of the presentations.

 

                                      *        *        *        *

 

The Paris Agreement reached in December 2015 represents major progress on the path to controlling worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.  All 197 U. N. member nations agreed to its terms.  This accomplishment is due in large part to departure from earlier attempts at negotiating a treaty involving imposing predetermined limits on emissions from each nation.  Instead the Paris Agreement solicits voluntary pledges from each which, once filed, are subject to review and verification by the U. N. 

Prior to the convening of the Paris meeting almost all nations had already submitted their pledges.  A scientific evaluation shows that those pledges are insufficiently ambitious to achieve the goal of keeping the global average temperature increase less than 2ºC during this century.  Climate model calculations by  Fawcett and coworkers (Science, 2015, Vol. 350, pp. 1168-1169) show that the current voluntary pledges will keep the annual

 

Actual (up to 2010) and projected annual rates of emission of CO₂ from energy and major industrial sources from 1990 to 2100.  The heavy lines are summary representations for four emissions scenarios.  Top to bottom these are the reference case of no emissions reduction policy in place; no reduction policy up to 2030, then a 2% per year reduction in emissions; implementation of only the current voluntary pledges through 2030, continued unchanged to 2100 (curve labeled INDCs); and the current voluntary pledges to 2030, then further reduction by at least 5% per year to 2100.  The individual thin lines are actual modeling runs repeated many times.  IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; AR5, Fifth Assessment Report issued 2013-4.

Source: Fawcett and coworkers, Science, 2015, Vol. 350, pp. 1168-1169; http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/350/6265/1168.full.pdf .

 

rate of CO₂ emissions level at their present rates up to 2100 (curve labeled INDCs in the graphic above).  Since these are annual rates, the emissions will continue to raise the total accumulated CO₂ level throughout this period, leading to a steady rise in global average temperature to 2100.  Only the lowest heavy blue curve shows a decreased rate of annual emissions after 2030, accomplished in the model by imposing a stringent reduction in annual emissions rate of 5% per year.  The accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere continues, admittedly at lower rates, throughout this period.  As a result the global average temperature will still continue rising from its present (unprecedented high) value at a slow but measurable pace.

The Paris negotiators recognized this deficiency, and included the intention in the Agreement to reconvene in five years to assess progress and to encourage updated pledges including more ambitious emission reductions from the member nations.  It also mentions explicitly the more stringent goal that reductions should in fact be ambitious enough to keep the increase in global average temperature below 1.5ºC.

Some nations and provinces around the world have already undertaken efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. China’s pledge lays out increasing annual emissions until 2030, mainly from burning coal, then a reduction in that rate.  But the recent economic slowdown in that country appears already to be leading to lower emissions than anticipated.  As part of its pledge, China intends to expand pilot cap-and-trade limits on emissions in some of its cities to the nation as a whole.

Australia imposed a carbon pricing scheme in 2012, but it was repealed in 2014.  In addition Australia is now severely cutting back its spending on its respected government scientific research organization, including its climate science section.  This impedes the country’s and the world’s ability to track its greenhouse gases and temperatures.

The European Commission announced a plan in 2010 to reduce emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  Europe implemented a cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) a decade ago as part of its participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC agreement preceding the Paris Agreement.  The ETS has had difficulties that are preventing it from achieving its full potential.

The U.S. federal government has been unable to enact laws to limit emissions because the majority party in one or both of the Congress’s chambers does not admit the need to address man-made global warming.  But President Obama has undertaken executive steps that will double fuel efficiency of the nation’s vehicles, and will increase the efficiency of electricity generation in electricity generation.  Independently, California and some other states have policies limiting emissions similar to the reduction intended by the European Commission.

In Canada, the province of British Columbia has had a revenue-neutral carbon tax in place since 2008.  Revenues collected from the tax are used to lower tax rates in other categories.  Use of fossil fuels has dropped with no effect on the province’s economy.

 

Conclusion

 

Implementation of the Paris Agreement of 2015 promises to turn our world from a warming disaster to a manageable, but palpably warmer, global environment.  But there are powerful political and commercial interests opposing the changes needed to stabilize the global climate.  Business models of large multinational energy companies need to change, such that they recognize that profits can be derived from producing renewable energy.  Deep-rooted psychological barriers also exist that resist our need to change our ways.  With good will and ambitious planning the fable represented by Paris 2115 may come to pass.
 © 2015 Henry Auer

The Centennial Commemoration of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement

A Fable

It was December 2115, the hundredth anniversary of the agreement to a climate treaty reached among all the members of the United Nations, in Paris.  The members of the Petrex extended family gathered to mark the occasion.  By that time, three to four generations after the event, the clan had grown considerably, and had established for itself a fully self-sufficient environment inside its terradome.  For the occasion the space was opulently fitted out with an artificial lake in which were moored several model oil rigs.  The pipe linking the rigs to shore ended in an internally illuminated fountain gurgling champagne.  Scattered about the artificially-turfed land areas were several working model oil wells erected in mud fields of black caviar, pumping dark chocolate and coffee liqueurs, and other reminders of the black gold that had started the Petrex fortune, more than one hundred years earlier.

Back then, the clan founder, Malvolio Petrex, chairman and chief executive officer of the largest oil company at the time, had come to realize the inconsistencies of his, and his company’s, position.  They were, at one and the same time, using all their financial power and political influence to perpetuate, indeed to expand, the use of the oil they extracted from the ground, while correctly realizing that their exploitative activities were worsening the global warming already well under way.  After all, the Paris agreement itself was reached in response to expert scientific findings, reported for at least the preceding twenty years, that burning oil and other fossil fuels, such as those his company and others were pulling from the ground, added irreversibly to the atmospheric burden of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.

Malvolio Petrex knew that global warming was going to get much worse in the coming years, because his company and others were continuing to produce fossil fuels at ever-increasing rates of growth, year after year.  After all, more and more energy was needed to fuel the demands of economies all over the world, being used to expand their economies and raise the poorest peoples of the world out of poverty. 

He wasn’t too worried about his own welfare, though.  Thanks to his immeasurable wealth, he already had peppered several secure estates around the world, in various climatic and ecological settings.  But as any other dynastic figure that we may encounter throughout history, he was concerned about the wellbeing of his progeny.  He knew that the travesties his business activities were creating would worsen after he was gone, impacting the lives and indeed the safety of his scions.  He understood that worsening warming would lead to economic and political unrest among the impoverished and others less well off than he because they would be suffering the harmful effects of warming: flooding in some regions; droughts, wildfires and famine in others; and inexorable sea level rise driving millions around the world from their traditional homes and livelihoods.

And so he embarked on a program to develop self-contained environments for himself and his family.  The environments would insulate his family from the unpleasantness of dealing with the effects of climate change by keeping the open atmosphere out, and the family’s living quarters and areas for amusing themselves in.  The first models were installed on the grounds of his existing estates, and were relatively modest. 

Now, one hundred years later, after many rounds of development and improvement, this Petrex estate was enveloped in its own protective terradome.  It was a large, fully enclosed environment covering almost one square mile, incorporating the estate’s mansion, its recreational areas, and fields producing much of its food needs.  The terradome insulated the estate from the worst “weird” climate and weather events brought on by the extreme warming that the world had attained by then, as well as keeping a portion of the sun’s warming light from penetrating to the land within it.  The Petrex family had practically no need to travel outside the terradome; it was almost entirely self-sufficient.

As a result, they were insulated as well from the harms and damages induced by the warmer climate that most of the peoples of the world were suffering.  Or maybe they knew and, just like Malvolio Petrex a hundred years earlier, chose to ignore it.  The population at large was subjected to far worse conditions than Petrex’s world had experienced one hundred years earlier: debilitating heat waves and droughts, intense storms bringing on severe flooding, encroaching oceans because of the severe degree of sea level rise, all brought on by the excess global warming that burning fossil fuels induced. 

By the time of the centennial anniversary the opportunity for effective action to combat global warming had long passed.

 

                                      *        *        *        *

 

President Obama delivered an annual State of the Union speech on January 28, 2014, as reported by this writer earlier.  He stated what is probably the most profound and basic motivation for attacking the problem of global warming:   

“Climate change is a fact.  And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”  

Importantly, we know with practically complete certainty that the excess warming of the planet is due to humanity’s burning of fossil fuels to power our economies.  The President’s statement illuminates the core of our attitudes and behavior about global warming, namely, the strong desire we all feel to pass on to our children and further progeny a secure world not threatened by the consequences of our present environmental actions. 

Moral basis for climate action. President Obama laid down a forceful imperative, that of working to abate global warming for the welfare of our children and their children, and by inference, our future progeny whom we will never know. We can consider this the most powerful, fundamental driver for action against global warming. It is a principal motivation for the faithful, who consider that we are stewards of God’s creation, responsible for preserving its bounties for ourselves and our progeny. It is an important guiding principle for others as well who direct their actions to the betterment of the world and the lives of their fellow humans.

The effects of global warming pervade the entire earth.  Once fossil fuels are burned, the carbon dioxide they produce is distributed worldwide throughout the atmosphere.  The stronger greenhouse effect that results leads to unprecedented warming of the earth system, its air, water and land.  Indeed, heating is occurring about sixty to one hundred times faster than during any earlier warming or cooling interval uncovered in the geological record going back almost one million years.  The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere, but over 90% of the excess heat enters the oceans.  It is stored there long-term and recirculates back to the atmosphere as ocean currents change. 

Warming affects all inhabitants of our planet, poor and rich, weak and powerful alike.  It is folly to think that those having wealth and exerting power can be insulated from its effects.  The Paris agreement opened the way, for the first time, for all peoples to make concerted efforts to minimize further warming of the planet.  We all must ensure that the agreement is implemented, and extended in the way it calls for.

 

© 2015 Henry Auer

Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters: Analysis and Forecast of the IPCC

Summary.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently issued a summary of its forthcoming report “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation”.  The summary reports that in recent decades the number and severity of extreme weather and extreme climatic events have increased, as determined reliably.  It projects that without imposing world-wide policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the rise of world-wide temperatures, such events will grow even more.  These include higher extremes of temperature, changes in precipitation patterns including increasingly severe reainfall, drought, and coastal flooding.  The effects on human society around the globe will be significantly impacted, for example in water resources, food security, forestry, health and tourism.

We conclude that the nations of the world should endeavor to reach a new agreement governing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the extent of the global rise in temperature.

Introduction.  Warming of the long-term average temperature across the globe has been induced by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, according to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)).  4AR indicated that there was a strong likelihood that warmer temperatures across the globe could lead to periods of high temperature experienced as heat waves; increased aridity, including drought; and  higher precipitation, perhaps coupled with storms of higher intensity and river flooding; among others. 

A previous post on this blog reviewed two scientific publications that for the first time explicitly linked extremes of rainfall and flooding through the year 2000 to the warming of the average global temperature as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.  Statistical analyses of rainfall and flooding were used to correlate observed rainfall patterns or flooding resulting from heavy rains to the predictions of several climate models that include the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  The linkage between the greenhouse gases and the extreme rainfall and flooding established the role of mankind’s burning of fossil fuels in the phenomena analyzed with certainty.

On November 18, 2011 the IPCC released a “Summary for Policy Makers of its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” [Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S. K., Tignor, M. and P. M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA (SREX)).  (The complete report is due in February 2012.)  This post presents a selection of the main findings presented in SREX.

Special Report on Extreme Events.  SREX, using previously published data and reports, including AR4, examined the intersection of long-term changes in climate, the degree of exposure of populations and socioeconomic groups to extreme events, and the susceptibility of these exposed entities to actual damages arising from the climate changes, using methods of statistical analysis.  The report excludes discussion of possible programs for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the extent of warming of the climate.

Historical Climate Data

SREX outlines several conclusions concerning changes in climate-driven extremes and in their impact on human activities.  It uses a coded italicized  indication of likelihood or confidence level in a given statement, which is indicated here as needed.

The Report concludes that, compared with the period 1981-2000, it is very likely (90-100% probability) that the number of cold days and nights has decreased worldwide, and that the number of warm days and nights has increased. 

Where available, adequacy of and agreement of data indicate that the length and or number of heat waves has increased.  It is likely (66-100% probability) that many regions across the globe have had an increased number of heavy precipitation events.

It is likely that man-made effects on climate, including increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, have contributed to warming of extreme daily temperatures.

Data concerning river floods is limited and superimposed on changes in land use and engineering projects. Increases in extreme precipitation across the globe are linked to man-made climate contributions with medium confidence.  It is likely, however, that coastal high water extremes have increased, related to a higher mean sea level. It is likely that man-made climate contributions have led to increases in extreme coastal high water.

Modeled Future Climate Likelihoods

SREX concludes that, compared with the period 1981-2000, the frequency of unusually hot days will increase and the frequency of unusually cold days will decrease, considerably by the period 2045-2065, and greatly by the period 2081-2100, with a probability of 99-100%.  As well, the frequency of unusually heavy precipitation will increase, with a probability of 66-100%.  A baseline for an “unusually hot day” and “unusually heavy precipitation” refers to events that on a broad scale occurred about every 20 years during 1981-2000. 

SREX presents a diagrammatic world map with 26 regions of land surface identified.  For each region there is a graphical diagram showing how the interval between such unusual events is predicted to shorten, based on the results of climate modeling using three different scenarios (see Details below) and twelve climate models of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.  In addition, a global average of interval shortening is presented for hot days and for precipitation events; these are given in the following graphic (please read the explanatory legend):

Reduction in the interval between (increased frequency of) events predicted by global climate models, using Scenarios B1, A1B and A2 for future emissions of greenhouse gases.  A: Bottom, diagram showing that for the barred image for each scenario, the median value obtained from all the models used is the heavy horizontal line, the highly likely range of values (central 50% of the range obtained from the various climate models used) is shown by the vertical shaded box, and the full range of values obtained from all the models is shown by the extent of the upper and lower bars.  Top, a hypothetical depiction of results permitting interpretation of the actual results in B and C.  Violet boxes and bars, Scenario B1; Green boxes and bars, Scenario A1B, and Orange boxes and bars, Scenario A2.  The vertical axis showing years predicted between unusual events (the inverse of frequency) is logarithmic, not linear.  The left set of three boxes and bars is the prediction for the period 2046-2065, and the right set is for the period 2081-2100.  B. Reduction in land-based globe-wide years predicted between unusual hot days.  C. Reduction in land-based globe-wide years predicted between heavy precipitation events.

Source: IPCC SREX.  http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf

(Please link here to see the regional diagrams, which have the same format as the graphic above.)

SREX foresees with medium confidence that droughts will become more severe as this century progresses in regions such as southern and central Europe, central North America and northern Central America, and southern Africa.

It is very likely that the mean sea level will continue rising during the 21^st century, leading to the prediction with high confidence that locations experiencing coastal erosion and ocean flooding will continue to be affected.

Harms and Damages from Climate Disasters

In recent months this blog has posted estimates of damage from extremes of climate (Extreme Wildfire Events and Global Warming, and Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events Due to Global Warming) and a nationwide estimate of damages in the U. S. (Estimated Costs of U.S. Extreme Weather Events).

SREX finds that financial losses from climate related disasters have increased, albeit with considerable variation in amount and location, in the years from 1980 to 2010 (see the graphic below).  The highest spike, at about US$ 225 billion, includes the damage from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, in the U. S.

Yearly losses for 1980-2010 from climate-related disasters in billions of U. S. dollars at 2010 values.  Orange, full extent of losses; blue, portion covered by insurance.

Sources: Original, Munich Re; image, IPCC http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/IPCC_SREX_slide_deck.pdf

Future damages and losses due at least in part to effects of the warming climate are expected in water resources, food security, forestry, health and tourism.  Generally infrastructure also will be affected, although the report finds it difficult to project effects because specific effects arising from demographic patterns and economic well-being vary greatly from region to region.

Conclusions

SREX presents summaries of historical climate patterns, and extreme weather and climate events associated with them.  It projects future trends in such events using climate models, concluding that their number and severity will increase during the rest of this century.  Statistical methods were used to assess the likelihood and/or the degree of confidence in the predictions.

SREX is but one of many analyses of future trends in greenhouse gas emission, the extent of global warming and its effects on extreme events, human wellbeing, and economic activity that have appeared in recent years.  Some have been summarized in earlier posts in this blog.  As has been pointed out, in the absence of actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the rise of the long-term global average temperature, we will experience more frequent severe climate effects.

The nations of the world, parties to the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, are currently meeting in Durban, South Africa (see here and here) for negotiations on a binding climate agreement.  In face of evidence such as that summarized here, it is imperative that they overcome their fundamental differences and conclude a new treaty limiting greenhouse gas emission, the rise of the world climate’s temperature, and the damages arising from warming.  Since the atmosphere bathes the entire planet, all nations owe it to themselves and all others to persevere in this endeavor.

Details

Emissions Scenarios (IPCC Emissions Scenarios – Summary for Policymakers, 2000).  

None of the three scenarios used in SREX includes additional climate policy actions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce global warming.

The B1 scenario describes a world population that peaks in mid-21^st century and then declines, and an economy moving toward a service economy and an information technology base.  It demands lower reliance on materials and energy sources.

The A1B scenario describes a world population that likewise peaks in mid-century then declines.  There is rapid development of new efficient technologies and rapid reduction in income disparities among regions of the planet.  Energy sources in A1B represent a balance between fossil fuels and non-fossil energy sources.

The A2 scenario contrasts with those above by having regions of the world develop relatively independently.  The population continues to expand.  Economic development proceeds regionally rather than integrated globally.

The predicted CO₂ emissions for the three scenarios increase by 2100 in the order B1, A1B, A2.  The distinctions in emissions between them are quite pronounced by 2100.

© 2011 Henry Auer

Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events Due to Global Warming

Labels. global warming,climate change,greenhouse gases,carbon dioxide,CO2, extreme weather,heat wave,drought,flooding,Pakistani floods,Russian wheat,crop loss,wildfires,bark beetles,economic costs,econometrics

Summary.  Global warming is predicted to increase the probability of extreme weather events that have the potential of harming human livelihood.  This post summarizes three extreme events whose occurrence is consistent with predicted effects of global warming: the massive flooding in Pakistan in 2010, the severe drought and failure of the wheat crop in Russia in 2010, and increased numbers and severity of wildfires in recent years in the American west.  Each of these is associated with very large economic and societal costs.  To date we have paid these costs only in a reaction to the event, after the fact.  An alternative strategy is to invest in measures, and undertake policies, that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so that the increase in global warming is minimized.

Introduction. Climate change relates to long-term trends in temperature, moisture and precipitation, and wind speeds, for example, that are averaged over many observation points, over periods of years.  Weather, on the other hand, relates to localized trends in these variables on the scale of days.  Thus changes such as global warming depend on observations involving recording and evaluating both routine weather patterns, which constitute the vast majority of the data, as well as the quite rare extreme events that appear in news headlines.  In this post, we discuss recent extreme weather events as examples for a discussion of economic effects.  Their occurrence is consistent with trends predicted by climate models for global warming.

Floods in Pakistan, August 2010.  The Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan, experiences monsoons every summer.  Monsoons are regular patterns of relatively heavy rainfall generally lasting, in this area, from June through September.  The monsoon of 2010 brought exceptionally heavy rainfall during July and August, indeed lasting into September, including the Indus River region.  The flooding began in the northern and western mountainous regions, and grew in amplitude and volume as the flood moved downstream.  The floods were the worst since 1929.  Losses included 1,980 deaths and over 100,000 farm animals killed.  The flooded area totaled more than 100,000 square km (38,600 sq. mi.), which, if a square, would be almost 200 mi. per side.  The flood impacted the lives of more than 20 million people, which is about 10% of the nation’s population.  1.6 million homes were lost, and agricultural lands were under water, much of which lasted several months, and included serious erosion of agricultural soil.  At least one season’s worth of seed (i.e. that already planted) was destroyed.

The World Bank participated with the Asian Development bank in preparing a Damage and Needs Assessment for Pakistan.  The Assessment included factors such as  near-term relief of displaced populations, and early and long-term recovery and reconstruction, including homes, schools and infrastructure, rehabilitation of agricultural needs.  It estimated that the damage totaled US$10 billion, and that total relief, recovery, and reconstruction costs could reach as high as US$10.9 billion.  A similar cost assessment was reached by the Humanitarian Information Unit (HIU) of the U. S. Department of State.  These cost estimates most likely need to be enhanced by a large factor in view of the low standard of living in Pakistan.  According to The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures, 2011 Ed. (Profile Books, Ltd., London), the GDP per head in purchasing power parity in Pakistan, on a scale for which the U. S. is 100, is 5.5.  In other words, items and services valued by the World Bank and the HIU at about US$10.9 billion in Pakistan would require up to 18 times higher expenditure, or almost US$200 billion to accomplish the same relief, recovery and reconstruction in the U. S.

A comment in the scientific journal Nature as the flood was occurring did not unequivocally associate this flooding event with global warming.  A meteorologist described an unusual jet stream event as an immediate factor in generating the rainfall that led to the flood.  The article also points to large growth in the population and its strains on land use.  The comment does indicate more generally that, as the global temperature continues to rise, the capacity of the air to contain water vapor also increases (see this post), thus increasing rainfall.  Already the Indian subcontinent is experiencing heavier rainfall than earlier in the past.  As quoted in the comment, Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre said "climate change will be a small but steady contributor to rainfall in the region". Indian climate scientists have documented an increasing frequency of extreme rainfall events, and a decreasing frequency of moderate events over India between 1951 and 2000, as the global temperature has been increasing (Science, 2006, Vol. 314, pp. 1442-1445).

Drought in Russia, Summer 2010.  A large area of Russia east and west of the Ural mountains experienced extreme heat in the summer of 2010.  According to Barriopedro and coworkers (Science 2011, Vol. 332, pp. 220-224; see Note 1) a zone north of the Black and Caspian seas experienced 7 day temperatures higher than the average for the period 1970-1999 by about 10-12ºC (18-22ºF) with a probability more than 99.99% (4σ), and a larger zone, extending from France well into Siberia was about 6-7ºC (11-13ºF) higher with a probability more than 95% (2σ) (the temperatures given are my readings of a color scale shown over a map of Europe and so may not be fully accurate).  Similar deviations from average are mapped for 15, 31 and 81 day periods, all centered over the same region of Russia.  The heat wave of 2010 probably broke 500 year temperature behavior.  By use of climate model computations that incorporate various assumptions for the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere, the authors predict that “mega-heatwaves” are 5 to 10 times more probable than in the past over the coming 40 years.

Lobell and coworkers published a study of worldwide crop yields for the major staple crops corn, rice, soybeans and wheat in Science online on May 5, 2011     

(10.1126/science.1204531; see also this post).  In general, crop yields decreased during recent times.  Specifically for the present topic, compared to 1960-2000, results for the wheat crop in Russia for 1980-2008 declined on average about 13%.  ­­­Over this interval the atmospheric content of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide was increasing, and global temperature was also increasing.  The authors correlated the decreasing yield with warming climate trends.

The extreme temperature trend across Russia caused a drought that severely decreased its wheat crop during 2010.  According to the New York Times in August 2010 the 2010 harvest was projected at about 70 million metric tons (1,000 kilograms per metric ton, about 2,200 pounds).  More recently, Bloomberg News reported that the crop failure amounted to one-third of the normal harvest.  (World-Grain.com places the wheat harvest the previous year at 61 million metric tons, and the 2010 harvest was 41 million metric tons, or a drop of one-third of the crop.  Harvests of all grains, wheat and barley fell 40%.) The preceding year’s harvest, in contrast, was 97 million metric tons.  Before the 2010 drought, Russia exported 21.4 million metric tons of wheat in 2009, about 17% of global exports.  But Russian President Putin stopped all exports in 2010, in order to conserve his nation’s supply. 

The economic costs of this crop failure are very high.  To begin with, the lost value from the lower yield, estimated using the November 2010 price of $270/metric ton and an estimated loss of 30 million tons gives $8.1 billion.  This represents the direct loss to Russian agriculture.  In addition, this crop loss as well as others elsewhere in the world for wheat and other staples, has constrained supply in the face of increasing demand worldwide, leading to sharp price increases. 

The sudden disruption in world wheat supply by Russia caused an increase in the price of wheat of US$100 per metric ton.  According to World-Grain.com as of April 5, 2011, Russia extended its export ban to July 1, 2011.  Ukraine has also imposed export restrictions.  Since world markets are connected, one cannot ascribe increases in prices for wheat and other staples only to the Russian crop failure of 2010.  Nevertheless, any persistent shortfalls in the supply of wheat and other grains worldwide have a serious socioeconomic impact, especially in poorer countries of the world.  In them, of necessity a significant proportion of a family’s available cash is needed for purchasing food.  According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, a United Nations agency, as reported by Hürriyet Daily News in May 2011, the Cereal Price Index for April 2011 was 5.5 % higher than in March, and 71% higher than in April 2010.  Price increases limit the ability to feed a family, and potentially lead to social and political unrest.

Costs of U. S. Wildfires.  Our previous post presents data that from the mid-1980’s the frequency of wildfires in the American west has increased almost four times over the average frequency from 1970 to 1986.  The increase occurred as an abrupt change from the earlier pattern in the mid 1980’s.  The total forest area consumed was more than 6 ½ times greater than before.  Higher temperatures during spring and summer correlated highly with the frequency increase, and the season for reported fires also grew longer by more than 2 months.

Expenditures by the U. S. Forest Service for fighting wildfires grew from a range of $100 million to $300 million per year in the 1970’s to over $2 billion per year by 2008, with a sharp increase in expenditures beginning in about 2000.

Forest fires in Alaska have become more damaging recently, and result in more CO₂ being released into the atmosphere by the combustion than is stored by forest growth.  This contributes to the worsening of global warming, turning forests into sources of greenhouse gases rather than a “sink”, or storage mechanism.

Fighting wildfires incurs considerable costs (suppression costs), which are documented by the U. S. Forest Service.  But once a fire is extinguished, further direct, indirect and societal losses continue to accumulate.  These have been identified by Zybach and coworkers in an econometric analysis characterized as LCD (least cost plus damage) or C+NVC (costs plus net value change).  These may grow to many times the immediate suppression costs. 

Details.  The authors characterize the following factors to be included in a calculation of costs plus losses.

1.     Suppression costs include immediate firefighting expenses, home and property losses, evacuation and emergency operations, preparative measures, training, supplies and equipment.

2.     Property costs from damage or destruction of public and private property.  This includes utilities damage, damage or loss of timber as an asset, agricultural crop and livestock losses.  Certain expenses after the wildfire include salvage and cleanup, devaluation of property, and others.

3.     Public health factors include diseases brought on by smoke inhalation.  These may be acute at the time of the wildfire, or longer lasting effects.

4.     Vegetation losses include not only destroyed standing timber, but longer lasting damage that hinders restorative growth, grazing and foraging lands, and loss of wildlife habitat.

5.     Wildlife is damaged by death, loss of range, expenses related to restoring habitat, and possibly loss of range for endangered species.

6.     Water losses arise from use of water in fighting a wildfire, loss of drinking water and irrigation sources, and degradation of water quality after the event.

7.     Air and atmospheric effects include emissions of particulates and noxious gases, greenhouse gas emissions.

8.     Soil erosion arises because the wildfire area can no longer hold rainfall or resist wind.  Soil becomes less fertile and productive and there may be need for relieving sediment formation.

9.     Recreation and esthetics losses include loss of natural areas for recreational activities, scenery and loss of hunting opportunities.  These losses contribute to a decrease in economic activity.

10. Energy losses arise from destruction of utility transmission lines and the resulting interruption of rate-paying power service, as well as loss of consequential future sales.

11. Heritage losses arise by damage to or destruction of historical and archeological sites.

When all these factors are included in a cost-plus-loss analysis, the total may mount to as high as 10 to 30 times the direct cost of the suppression effort.  The Forest Service cost estimates cited above represent only suppression costs.  Thus the comprehensive reckoning of the cost of wildfire activity could reach $20 to $60 billion per year, as of 2008.  Examples of cost analyses for six fires between 2000 and 2003 are shown below.

Source: The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. , Western Forestry Leadership Coalition, April 2009 (updated April 2010). http://www.wflccenter.org/news_pdf/324_pdf.pdf

The last column in the table shows the fraction of the total cost of the wildfire devoted to direct firefighting activity, expressed as a percent.  It is seen that the fraction varies widely, ranging from 3% to 53%. 

The previous post, entitled “Extreme Wildfire Events and Global Warming”, pointed out that higher temperatures and aridity over the western United States stresses its forests, so that they are less resistant to pests, including bark beetles.  In recent years loss of forested areas to bark beetle infestations has been three times as great as losses to wildfires, for a total loss estimate that is four times larger than for wildfires alone.  Most of the loss factors identified above in the econometric analysis for wildfires are also valid for forest death due to beetles.  This leads to a total economic cost from loss of forests from all sources in the American west of $80 to $240 billion per year, as of 2008.

Conclusions.

Global warming leads to climatic changes that, depending on geography and climate patterns, can increase precipitation to produce extreme rates of rainfall and consequent flooding in some regions.  In other regions elevated temperatures may be accompanied by extreme aridity producing drought conditions.

This post presents three anecdotal examples of consequences of extreme weather events which are, or may be considered to be, due to global warming.  The extreme flooding in Pakistan in 2010, the drought and wheat crop loss in Russia, Ukraine and Siberia, and increased incidence and severity of wildfires in the American west, are likely correlated with global warming.  It is important to emphasize the point made in the introduction that weather patterns over weeks or months are not directly ascribable to global warming.  Global warming is a change in climate which is described over years and over large regions of the globe, if not the entire planet.  Nevertheless, single extreme events are considered consistent with the predictions of models for global warming that lead to the phenomena experienced in these anecdotal examples.

The anecdotes presented here make clear that global warming brings with it enormous economic and societal costs.  Many of these costs can be quantified, as has been done here.  Since floods, droughts and wildfires occurred before recent decades, we cannot say that the financial costs mentioned here are fully due to global warming, but rather that a fraction of them are.  Such fractions, for sake of argument but which cannot be justified in this post, may range from, say, 20% to 50% of the total costs given.  These fractional costs represent the incremental cost that may be directly correlated with the effects arising from global warming.

As pointed out in each section, the effects of the Russian drought, the Pakistani floods, and American wildfires, each in their own way bring enormous economic costs, humanitarian distress, and long-lasting effects.  We, as citizens of the affected regions and as citizens of the world, to date have only reacted after the fact, responding to the disaster in question.  But we have the option of taking measures commensurate to the task of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases with the objective of limiting the extent of global warming.  These measures likewise involve expenditures of large sums of money, and must be undertaken as soon as possible in order to avert even more, and more severe, extreme weather events. 

Note 1. Abstract available online free, or the full article for a fee or through personal or institutional subscription.  Many public libraries, and university libraries open to the public, receive the journal.

© 2011 Henry Auer