In October, 2014, the sustainability advocacy group Ceres reported findings from a climate risk disclosure survey conducted by insurance regulators in California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York and Washington.

The survey covered 330 insurers operating in the US Property & Casualty (P&C), Life & Annuity, and Health sectors, representing around 87 percent of the nation’s insurance market in terms of premium volume. 193 of those responding were in the P&C sector, which is the sector I focus on in this post. Ceres released a similar report in 2012, involving 184 insurers in total.

In his foreword to the 2014 report, Washington’s Insurance Commissioner, Mike Kreidler, said that much of the insurance industry was still lagging on this issue, although the P&C sector was ahead of the others. He stated:

• “As key regulators of this sector, we strongly encourage insurance industry leaders and investors who own these companies to take this challenge far more seriously. There is no doubt that an early effort to adjust policies, premiums and insurance investments will result in less dramatic impacts later on, thus avoiding and reducing losses that we can already anticipate.”

One of the factors considered in the 2014 survey was the insurers’ approach to enterprise-wide climate risk management, including: (a) examination of the geographic spread of property exposures in relation to expected climate change impacts; (b) consideration of climate risks with regard to liquidity and capital needs, terms and costs of catastrophe reinsurance; and (c) frequency of reassessing climate risk.

Amongst the P&C insurers, 72 percent were rated “minimal” or “beginning”, with 20 percent “developing”, and the remaining 8 percent “leading”.The “leading” insurers were: Allianz; CSAA; First National; Grinnell Mutual; Hartford Fire & Casualty; Munich Re; Nationwide; PEMCO Mutual; Sompo Japan; Swiss Re; Hannover; Tokio Marine; WR Berkley; XL Group; and Zurich US.

Ceres found more positive results in relation to the respondents’ approach toward climate change modelling and analytics. It reported that 26 percent of insurers were in the “leading” category, and 21 percent in the second tier (of four) “developing” group. Ceres stated:

• “There are substantial benefits for insurers that effectively quantify risk exposure through the use of cat modelling. Ceres’ review of the survey results indicates that insurers that fully integrate catastrophe modelling into their risk management programs, through their underwriting and investment functions, are best positioned to both protect their businesses and capitalize on opportunities in a changing climate.”

The increasing use of modelling may contribute to more conservative premium rating and coverage offerings by insurers in future, as they seek to “protect their businesses” in an increasingly objective manner.

Ceres’ reporting framework had changed since its 2012 report, but there seems to have been little overall improvement since then. At that time (from its overall results): (a) almost all of the companies showed significant weakness in their preparedness to address the effects climate change may have on their business; (b) only 13 percent demonstrated a comprehensive climate change strategy; and (c) 48 percent viewed climate change as a potential future loss driver, even though scientific assessments from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others emphasised that climate change was already amplifying extreme events that lead to insured losses.

However, as in 2014, the P&C sector in 2012 was ahead of the others:

• “Property and Casualty (P&C) insurers . . . demonstrate far more advanced understanding of the theoretical risks that climate change poses to their business. P&C insurers also tend to be at a further stage of development in implementing the tools needed to manage climate change risks . . .”

A stark example of a senior insurance industry participant experiencing critical problems with climate change involved Belinda Hutchinson, former chair of Australia’s largest international insurer, QBE. In April 2011, following another summer of extreme events, she said:

• “The catastrophe events that have taken place this year, the floods in Queensland, the fires, have nothing to do with climate change. They are part of Australia’s really long history of floods, fires, droughts.” 

She may have subsequently changed her views on the subject. In December, 2013, The Age newspaper reported (with my underline):

• “QBE shareholders have taken a $4 billion hit this morning after the company announced a major profit downgrade and Belinda Hutchinson signalled her retirement from the insurance behemoth. . . QBE’s US division has been pummelled by problems in its crop, lenders placed property insurance and program businesses. The crop arm has been hit by the worst drought in over 50 years . . .”

Despite climate change’s serious potential impacts on the insurance industry, capacity is abundant for P&C and other business.

The situation has come about largely through pension funds and other institutional investors finding that post-GFC returns from the insurance industry compare favourably with those from other sectors of the economy. Hence, they are directing capital to the industry, adding to capacity and competition.

However, will the insurance mechanism be able to cope with a risk of this magnitude in the future? To the extent that the industry manages to do so, I can only envisage far more conservative premium terms and scope of coverage.

The presentation embedded in my December 2013 blog post “Risk Management, Insurance and the Climate Crisis” (also embedded below) included the following summarised comments from Dr Liam Phelan, currently of the University of Newcastle (Australia) (my underline):

• “Insurance system responses are consistent with earlier international political economy perspective that reflects a linear understanding of the Earth system, whereas a non-linear understanding is required.” 
• “Climate change undermines the basis of the insurance system, i.e. the capacity to pool and spread financial risk on the basis of known probabilities.  
• “Strong and ecologically effective mitigation is the only viable basis for the insurance system to manage its medium and long-term climate risk.” 
• “Anthropogenic climate change is by definition of our own making, and an accelerating catastrophe that will continue to impact humans and our societies. Unmitigated, anthropogenic climate change promises impacts that will be felt comprehensively, if unevenly, across all populations. The system that provides insurance, along with the rest of human activities, is vulnerable.” 
• “. . . climate change can mean insurance for weather risks – including extreme events – shifts from affordable to barely affordable, and eventually the risks become uninsurable . . . insurance for weather risks operates as though past events are a reliable guide to future experience. This remains true as long as the Earth (including its climate) stays in its currently stable state, one that is familiar to humans through the course of human history. Human-caused climate change means shifting the state of Earth, perhaps comparatively suddenly, from its familiar state into an alternative – and perhaps radically different – state.”

A key problem is that insurers and others are relying on projections from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are dangerously conservative, as they ignore critical feedback mechanisms in the climate system that accelerate the impacts.

However, even those projections indicate frightening global average temperature increases from pre-industrial times by 2100, ranging from +1.5°C to +4.9°C. Temperature increases at the poles are multiples of the global average, which is a factor contributing massively to the acceleration in warming and the non-linear nature of the impacts. It is likely that critical tipping points, leading to abrupt changes and potential runaway climate change, will be triggered (and many may have been already) by the time we reach +1.5°C.

Very credible sources are predicting much quicker developments than the IPCC. Here are some recent examples:

• Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, Michael Mann, recently predicted in a Scientific American article that we will reach +2°C by around 2036.
• A recent paper by Steven J Smith et al. in Nature Climate Change indicated a temperature increase of around +1°C over the coming forty years (and accelerating), in excess of the +0.85°C increase that has already occurred

Importantly, how do such increases translate in terms of extreme events?

A key aspect of higher temperatures is that they increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. According to Dr. Kevin Trenberth, former head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, commenting on the increase over the past thirty years:

• “It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.”

Another example is the fact that the warmer temperatures at the poles are having an enormous impact on the icecaps on Greenland and Antarctica, accelerating sea level rise, as is thermal expansion of the oceans.

Sea level rise is not uniform across the globe. The former Australian Climate Commission (disbanded by the current government) reported that a 50 centimetre (19 inch) rise in sea level would increase the likelihood of major inundation events by a factor of between several hundred and a thousand.That means that an event that had been classed as “1 in 100 years” could be expected to occur almost monthly. Cities like Norfolk, Virginia and Miami, Florida, are extremely vulnerable.

Critically, according to Dr James Hansen, former head of climate science at NASA and regarded by many as the world’s leading climate scientist, at +2°C, most of the world’s coastal cities are likely to be uninhabitable.

To the extent that organisations consider investing or developing supply chains internationally, they need to be aware that the climate change risks vary considerably from one country to another. Global risk analytics firm, Verisk Maplecroft, has identified 32 “extreme risk” countries in its Climate Change Vulnerability Index, which evaluates the sensitivity of populations, the physical exposure of countries, and governmental capacity to adapt to climate change over the next 30 years. Those countries include the growth economies of Cambodia (12), India (13), Myanmar (19), Pakistan (24) and Mozambique (27).

Without emergency mitigation measures, the insurance industry and its clients will almost certainly witness catastrophic impacts of climate change, which may occur much sooner than many had assumed.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References

Ceres, “Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey Report & Scorecard: 2014 Findings & Recommendations”, https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/insurer-climate-risk-disclosure-survey-report-scorecard-2014-findings-recommendations/view (accessed 18th April, 2015)

Ceres, “Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey 2012”, http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/naic-report/view (accessed 18th April, 2015)

Phelan, L., Macquarie University, “The relationship between anthropogenic climate change and the insurance system: Imperatives, options and reflections on theory”, 4 Aug 2010 (PhD Thesis);

Phelan, L., “Cuts in emissions are at a premium”, The Age, 25 Jan 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/cuts-in-emissions-are-at-a-premium-20110124-1a2ul.html

Hutchens, G., “QBE blames La Nina for disasters”, Sydney Morning Herald, 20/04/11, http://www.smh.com.au/business/qbe-blames-la-nina-for-disasters-20110419-1dng1.html

Liew, R., “QBE takes $4b hit on profit downgrade, chair’s exit“, The Age, 9th December, 2013, http://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/qbe-takes-4b-hit-on-profit-downgrade-chairs-exit-20131209-2yzyi.html

Mahony, P., “Risk Management, Insurance and the Climate Crisis“, 2nd December, 2013, Terrastendo.net, https://terrastendo.net/2013/12/02/risk-management-insurance-and-the-climate-crisis/

Mann, M.E. “Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036“, Scientific American, 18th March, 2014, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

Smith, S., Edmonds, J., Hartin, C.A., Mundra, A., Calvin, K., “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change”, Nature Climate Change, 9th March, 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2552.html

Science2.0, “James Hansen: To mitigate climate change, nuclear energy should be included”, 18th April, 2015, http://www.science20.com/news_articles/james_hansen_to_mitigate_climate_change_nuclear_energy_should_be_included-154923

Verisk Maplecroft, “Climate change and lack of food security multiply risks of conflict and civil unrest in 32 countries – Maplecroft:, https://maplecroft.com/portfolio/new-analysis/2014/10/29/climate-change-and-lack-food-security-multiply-risks-conflict-and-civil-unrest-32-countries-maplecroft/ (accessed 19th April, 2015)

Update 19th April, 2015: Comment on Dr James Hansen relating to a 2°C temperature increase added, and my December, 2013 presentation embedded (refer below).

Image: Lightning, night storm © Petr Mašek | Dreamstime.com

Presentation from 2013:

PDF (Downloadable)

Chatham House is a London-based “think tank”. Its website reports that it consistently ranks highly in the University of Pennsylvania’s annual “Global Go To Think Tank Index“, where it has been assessed by peers as the top think tank outside the US for seven consecutive years and number two worldwide for the past four years. [1]

In December, 2014, Chatham House released its research paper, “Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector“. [2] The paper noted the livestock sector’s significant climate change impacts (which have been well documented by others) and the fact that major environmental groups and key decision makers are effectively ignoring that aspect of the climate crisis (a fact that has also been reasonably well documented).

The paper’s main contribution relative to previous reports was its reporting of results from a major survey it had commissioned into public attitudes on the relationship between climate change and meat and dairy consumption. The survey was conducted in Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the US.

Importantly, respondents in developing countries with growing meat consumption, China, India and Brazil, “demonstrated high levels of acceptance of anthropogenic climate change, greater consideration of climate change in their food choices, and a greater willingness to modify their consumption behaviour than the average of the countries assessed” (p. 23).

The authors suggest that, as more people become aware of the link between the livestock sector and climate change, they will modify their dietary habits. They also say that further research is required into methods that could be used to close the current “awareness gap”.

What are my concerns with the paper?

My comments focus on the climate change impact of the relevant products, which was the main focus of the paper. Other issues referred to were: health; food security; water security; land use; and biodiversity. [Footnote 1]

Overstatement of dairy’s emissions intensity relative to other products

Doesn’t meat from sheep and goats count?

The authors cited a November, 2013 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in stating that beef and dairy are the most emissions-intensive livestock products. [3] That is correct in respect of beef, but it does not reflect the FAO’s findings in respect of dairy. (The Chatham House paper used the term “dairy” to include milk from cows, sheep and goats, as well as eggs.) [4]

The FAO report was based on findings from life cycle assessments using its Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). The model takes into account emissions along the supply chain, from land use to the retail point.

Contrary to what is stated in the Chatham House report, the specific pages referred to in the FAO report (pp. 15-16) indicated that meat from small ruminant animals (sheep and goats) was more emissions-intensive than milk from those animals and cows. The measure of emissions intensity used at that point was kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases per kilogram of protein (kg CO2-e/kg protein).

Pork, chicken meat and chicken eggs (the only other products mentioned), were reported to be less emissions-intensive than milk (with chicken eggs having the lowest measure).

The results are summarised in Figure 1, showing approximate global average figures for each product. For comparison purposes, I have added protein-based emissions intensity figures for two plant-based products. They are mid-range figures from a 2012 paper by Nijdam, et al., which reported results from a range of life cycle assessment studies. [5]

Figure 1: Emissions intensity of various products (kg CO2-e/kg protein)

From FAO (global average for animal products) and Nijdam, et al. (mid-range for plant products)

What about alternative ways to measure emissions intensity?

Elsewhere in the cited report, the FAO used an alternative measure of emissions intensity; kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases per kilogram of product (kg CO2-e/kg product). Findings were provided in respect of products derived from cows, buffaloes, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens. Here are some of the results. For comparison purposes, I have added the product-based emissions intensity figure for pulses from Nijdam, et al.

Figure 2: Emissions Intensity of various products (kg CO2-e/kg product using 100-year GWP)

Based on 100-year GWP from FAO (global average for animal products) and Nijdam, et al. (mid-range for pulses)

It would have been helpful for the Chatham House authors to explain the emissions intensity basis that they had utilised, and to have also reported findings based on the alternative approach. Although emissions per unit of protein is a useful measure, the alternative takes into account the fact that nutrients other than protein also need to be considered. Such an approach has been widely utilised, with examples including: the FAO and Nijdam papers, along with a prominent study by Oxford University researchers (Scarborough, et al. as referred to below). [6]

Other conflicting results

The Chatham House authors mentioned that emissions vary greatly at farm level, national level, and across different production systems. To support that point, they cited the Nijdam paper (referred to above), yet that study also contradicted Chatham House’s point about dairy’s emissions intensity relative to other products.

Nijdam, et al. analysed fifty-two life cycle assessment studies dealing with a varying range of products, including meat, milk, seafood and other products. Twelve of the studies included milk. The authors did not specify any particular type of milk, and it would seem reasonable to assume they were referring to cow’s milk. In terms of the same measure referred to by Chatham House (emissions per kilogram of protein), Nijdam et al. reported that milk was less emissions intensive than sheep meat in all relevant studies.

Emissions intensity figures for milk were within the range of findings for pig meat, while the results for eggs were generally within or below that range. There was some overlap in the results for milk and eggs and those for poultry meat, seafood and certain meat substitutes. Results for the category “vegetal protein” were lower than those for milk in all cases, and generally lower than those for eggs.

Measured in terms of emissions per kilogram of product, Nijdam, et al.’s results were even more pronounced. The range of milk’s emissions intensity was found to be 1 – 2 kg CO2-e/kg product. That was a lower range than: beef; sheep meat; pork; poultry; eggs; and seafood. It was the same as 100% vegetable meat substitutes and pulses.

Other studies have found similar results. For example, the Oxford University study (Scarborough, et al.) referred to earlier, reported that milk’s emissions intensity was 1.8 kg CO2-e/kg product, which was significantly below that of eggs, fish, poultry, pig meat, sheep meat and beef. The emissions intensity of cream was also relatively low, at 2.4 kg CO2-e/kg product.

Scarborough, et al.’s paper was also referred to in the Chatham House paper, but not in relation to dairy products. Like the Nijdam paper, the Scarborough paper did not specify any particular type of milk. Once again, it seems reasonable to assume that it was referring to cow’s milk.

A key reason for milk’s relatively low emissions intensity is that it is produced for most of a dairy cow’s life. As a result, the dairy cow’s emissions are attributed to many more kilograms of product or protein, than those of a cow bred specifically for meat. The same point contributes to the fact that the emissions intensity of beef from dairy cows is lower than that of beef from cows bred specifically for meat. In other words, milk and meat from dairy cows are more efficient sources of nutrients than meat from specialised beef cattle, with inherent inefficiency being a key factor in the relatively high emissions intensity of many animal-based food products.

When measured in terms of emissions per kilogram of product, cheese is more emissions intensive than milk due to its relative density, in that the weight of the food consumed is less than the weight of the food that contributed to its production. Nijdam, et al. reported that cheese’s emissions intensity ranged from 6 to 22 kg CO2-e/kg product, meaning it was generally lower than that of sheep meat, which ranged from 10 to 150 kg CO2-e/kg product. [Footnote 2]

In terms of emissions per kilogram of protein, milk and cheese are similar, with ranges of 28-43 kg CO2-e/kg protein for milk and 28-68 kg CO2-e/kg protein for cheese. The reason is that most of the protein from the milk is retained in the end product.

The Chatham House authors were correct in highlighting the benefits of plant-based products in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein. On that measure, despite dairy products figures being well below those of beef, Nijdam, et al. reported that they are significantly higher than products such as pulses, including soy, which were measured at 4-10 kg CO2-e/kg protein. When measured in terms of emissions per kilogram of product, the figure for pulses is identical to that of milk, at 1-2 kg CO2-e/kg product.

The Chatham House report has been widely reported, including its focus on dairy products. In absolute terms, dairy’s emissions are significant. However, that fact (at least in respect of milk) primarily reflects the high volume of product, rather than its emissions intensity. The emissions intensity of cow’s milk is generally a small fraction of beef’s, and more in line with many other products. For that reason, the decision by the Chatham House authors to categorise dairy, as a whole, with beef is difficult to understand.

Based on the evidence I have presented here, if individuals were to reduce their consumption of cows’ milk and certain other dairy products in an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, their efforts may be far less effective than a reduction in beef consumption.

No mention of Global Warming Potential (GWP)

The emissions intensity and overall emissions figures cited by the Chatham House authors were based on a 100-year “global warming potential” (GWP) for relevant greenhouse gases.

I argue that any paper highlighting the detrimental impact of animal agriculture should mention that a 20-year GWP may be a more appropriate measure. That’s because methane, a critical factor in livestock’s climate change impacts, breaks down in the atmosphere to a significant extent in 9-12 years. Accordingly, the standard 100-year GWP (which shows the average impact over a period of 100 years) greatly understates its shorter term impact. The alternative 20-year measure is readily available. The issue is critical when considering the impact of climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged that the 100-year figure is not always appropriate. It stated, “There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices. The choice of time horizon is a value judgement because it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [7]

To demonstrate the impact, I have converted Figure 2 above to a “20-year GWP” version. (Note the change of scale.) I have also grossed up relevant figures to represent emissions per kilogram of retail weight rather than carcass weight, as not all the carcass is used in the end product. [Footnote 3]

Figure 3: Emissions Intensity of various products (kg CO2-e/kg product using 20-year GWP and adjusted to retail weight)

Based on 20-year GWP from FAO (global average for animal products) and Nijdam, et al. (mid-range for pulses) adjusted to 20-year GWP and retail weight

The figures are based on the FAO’s global average breakdown of the different greenhouse gases contributing to the relevant products’ emissions intensity. The figures for meat from grazed animals may be understated, because methane’s share of emissions in a grazing system would be higher than in a mixed system, and the methane figure is grossed up considerably when adjusting for a 20 year global warming potential. The emissions intensity figures vary significantly by region.

Acceptance of 2°C rise in temperature and the concept of a carbon budget

The Chatham House paper refers to “the stated objective of the international community” to avoid exceeding 2 degrees Celsius of global warming. It also notes the concept of a carbon budget, which is the difference between the total allowable greenhouse gas emissions for 2°C of warming, and the amount already emitted.

It is true that the 2°C threshold forms part of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), albeit with consideration toward lowering it to 1.5°C in the near future.[8]. Despite the potential lowering of the threshold, the 2°C figure appears to have become ingrained in climate change discourse. The concept of a carbon budget is also widely accepted. So, while the authors are not alone in helping to perpetuate these notions, as I have indicated elsewhere, both are likely to be disastrous. [9]

Leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, economist Jeffrey Sachs and co-authors have said that scenarios with 2°C or more global warming are so dangerous that “aiming for the 2°C pathway would be foolhardy”. [10]

In the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the lowest-risk carbon budget was based on a one-in-three chance of exceeding the 2°C threshold, that is to say, a one-in-three chance of failure. If the chance is lowered to one-in-ten, then based on an analysis by The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, there is no carbon budget left. In other words, the carbon we have already emitted leaves us with a one-in-ten chance of exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. [11] The current carbon budget concept allows for significant emissions beyond those that have already occurred.

We require a risk as low as one-in-a-million when building a jet airliner, but accept one-in-three chance of failure when trying to retain a habitable planet. The idea is bizarre, and ignores the fact that the climate crisis requires emergency action.

Conclusion

Although I perceive some shortcomings in the Chatham House paper, its survey results and the call for further research aimed at finding ways to change dietary habits for the benefit of the planet are welcome developments.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Footnotes

1. I have not commented in detail on the paper’s reference to the livestock sector’s share of global greenhouse gas emissions, although my comments on GWP are relevant. For further comments on livestock’s share, please see my article “Livestock and climate: Do percentages matter?“.

2. Scarborough, et al. reported that 10.1 litres of milk are required to produce 1 kg of semi-hard cheese (Table 1). The FAO has reported that 1 litre of milk weighs 1.031 kg, therefore there are just over 10 kg of milk in 1 kg of cheese, with a corresponding impact on emissions intensity (in addition to emissions created in the production process). [12]

3. The figures for retail weight attribute all carcass weight emissions to retail cuts of meat. If emissions are also attributed to other products that may be derived from the carcass, utilising fat, bone and the like, then the emissions intensity of the retail cuts will be lower than shown here. For example, the highest figure (beef – grazed non dairy) would be around 208, rather than 287 kg CO2-e/kg product.

Updates

March 23, 2015: New Footnote 1 inserted.

April 5, 2015: Footnote 3 added.

References

[1] McGann, J.G., “2014  Global Go To Think Tank Index  Report”, 4th February, 2015, University of Pennsylvania, http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=think_tanks

[2] Bailey, R., Froggatt, A., Wellesley, L., “Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption”, Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, December, 2014, http://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-%E2%80%93-climate-change%E2%80%99s-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy and http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20141203LivestockClimateChangeBaileyFroggattWellesley.pdf

[3] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G., 2013, “Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm

[4] Bailey, et al., op cit., Footnote 3, p. 4

[5] Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), “The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes”, Food Policy, 37 (2012) 760–770, published online 26th September, 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919212000942

[6] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, 11th June, 2014, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[7] Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” , pp. 711-712, [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[8] Cambridge University, “Climate Change: Action, Trends and Implications for Business, The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1“, p.5, http://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Climate-and-Energy/Science-Report.aspam; http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/IPCCWebGuide.pdf

[9] Mahony, P., “The climate crisis requires emergency action“, Terrastendo, 24th August, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/08/24/the-climate-crisis-requires-emergency-action/

[10] Hansen J, Kharecha P, Sato M, Masson-Delmotte V, Ackerman F, Beerling, D.J., Hearty, P.J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hsu, S, Parmesan, C., Rockstrom, J., Rohling, E.J., Sachs, J., Smith, P., Steffen, K., Van Susteren, L., von Schuckmann, K., Zachos, J.C. (2013) “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature”. PLoS ONE 8(12): e81648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081648, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 and http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF

[11] Raupach, M. R., I.N. Harman and J.G. Canadell (2011) “Global climate goals for temperature, concentrations, emissions and cumulative emissions”,  Report for the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. CAWCR Technical Report no. 42. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, Melbourne, cited in Spratt, D., 22nd May, 2014, ibid., cited in Spratt, D., “The real budgetary emergency and the myth of “burnable carbon”, Climate Code Red, 22nd May, 2014, http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/05/the-real-budgetary-emergency-burnable.html

[12] Draaijer, J., “Milk producer resource book”, p. 40, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2002, http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y3548e/y3548e06.htm and http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y3548e/y3548e06.htm

Image

Cow,cattle, livestock © Visuall2 | Dreamstime.com

Introduction

This article expands on material from a recent post by highlighting some subsequent news. For completeness, some of that recent material has been included again.

Global warming continues

Michael Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Pennsylvania State University. In March last year, he commented on what had become known as “the pause” of recent times in global warming. He suggested that the term was a misnomer, as “temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade”.

In the relevant article he went on to predict that we will reach 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase by around 2036. [1] It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of such an outcome, should it occur. 

Two months earlier, the Skeptical Science website (which uses the word “skeptical” in its true sense and takes climate change very seriously) reported that, in 2013, the equivalent of 12 Hiroshima atomic bombs of heat had been added to the oceans every second (up from an average of around 4 per second in the previous 16 or so years). [2] The accumulated number since 1998 is now over 2.2 billion. Based on those staggering numbers, it should be no surprise that we have a problem. The article also indicated that the oceans have been absorbing around 93% of the energy from global warming over recent decades.

It may be about to accelerate

Citing a study published in the journal Nature by Smith, et al., [3], climate change commentator Joseph Romm has indicated that the only pause “was in the long-expected acceleration of warming. That is, while the rate of global warming has been roughly constant for the last few decades, it should have started to speed up.” He went on to say that multiple studies, including this latest one, indicate that “we should expect a speed up very soon.” [4]

The authors of the Nature study modeled potential per-decade rates of temperature change over 40-year periods in respect of two RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) utilised by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

RCPs outline the trajectory of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations through to the year 2100 under different scenarios. Each is identified by a number representing its anticipated radiative forcing, which is a measure (in watts per square metre) of the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system (including solar radiation and resultant infrared radiation that escapes to space or becomes trapped by greenhouse gases). The four pathways are: RCP2.6; RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5. (RCP2.6 is also known as RCP3-PD, with PD standing for “peak and decline”, whereby radiative forcing peaks at 3 watts per square metre and then declines to 2.6 before 2100.)

The various scenarios take into account greenhouse gas emissions, developments in technology, changes in energy generation, changes in land use, economic circumstances and population growth.

The RCPs utilised in the Nature study were RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The former is regarded as a stabilisation scenario, where action is taken to limit greenhouse gas concentrations. RCP8.5 involves higher greenhouse gas emissions than under RCP4.5, that are still rising in 2100.

The results are shown in Figure 1. Even under the relatively conservative RCP4.5, the rate of change per decade had jumped from 0.07°C in 1990 to 0.21°C in 2010, and was anticipated to range from 0.25°C and 0.27°C between 2020 and 2050. [5] That implies a temperature increase of around 1°C over the coming forty years, in excess of the 0.85°C increase that has already occurred since pre-industrial times (which is slightly more conservative than Michael Mann’s estimate).

Under RCP8.5, per decade increases of just under 0.4°C would be occurring by 2050 (and higher figures subsequently), resulting in even more onerous outcomes.

Figure 1: 40-year global rates of temperature change (per-decade)

Some impacts of a 2°C temperature increase

Climate change author, Mark Lynas, has indicated some potential impacts of a 2°C temperature increase. [6]

European summers could generally be expected to be as hot as 2003, when 30,000 people died from heatstroke.

The Mediterranean area can expect six more weeks of heatwave conditions each year, with wildfire risk also growing, while its southern region would lose a fifth of its rainfall, with major implications for the tourism industry.

In Peru, the glaciers would disappear from the Andean peaks that currently supply Lima with water.

In California, the loss of snowpack from the Sierra Nevada,  three-quarters of which could disappear, would significantly affect the water supply of Los Angeles and other cities.

Global food supplies, especially in the tropics, would also be affected

A third of all species alive today may be driven to extinction as climate change destroys their habitat.

The temperature increase may be understated

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the models used by the IPCC do not allow for potentially critical “slow feedback” mechanisms, such as ice sheet growth and decay, changes in vegetation cover, and permafrost melting. By the time a temperature increase approaching 2°C has been reached, key climate change tipping points may have been breached, creating a very real risk of even higher temperatures and runaway climate change over which we will have little or no control. [7]

The Catch-22 of global warming

Our efforts to avoid accelerated warming are limited by the fact that we have created a possible “Catch-22” in the form of aerosols generated by the burning of fossil fuels. [Footnote 1] Aerosols are airborne particulates such as sulphates, nitrates, and dust from smoke and manufacturing. They have a cooling effect, sometimes referred to as “global dimming”, which has offset some of the warming effects of greenhouse gases. They only remain in the atmosphere for around ten days, so their cooling impact will be short-lived in any transition away from fossil fuels to less carbon-intensive energy sources.

The charts in Figure 1 include a range for uncertainties in aerosol forcing (grey shading).

It could be crunch time for Arctic sea ice

Current indications are that the winter maximum area of Arctic sea ice this year will represent a record low since satellite records began in 1979. [8] That might be an ominous sign in the context of an earlier prediction by Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, that the Arctic may effectively be free of summer sea ice (less than 1 million square kilometres) in September this year or next, with extremely serious flow-on effects. [9]

Conclusion

I trust that these comments add some context to discussions on the subject of climate change. I believe the more we understand the problem, the better placed we will be to contribute towards the urgent action that is required. [10]

Update

Additional information regarding the IPCC’s RCP scenarios added on 17th March, 2015, and reference numbers amended accordingly, along with other minor changes.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

The term “Catch-22” originated in the 1961 book of the same name by Joseph Heller. The Oxford dictionary defines the term as “a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions“.

References

[1] Mann, M.E. “Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036“, Scientific American, 18th March, 2014, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

[2] Painting, R., “The oceans warmed up sharply in 2013: We’re going to need a bigger graph”, 31st January, 2014, http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html

[3] Smith, S., Edmonds, J., Hartin, C.A., Mundra, A., Calvin, K., “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change”, Nature Climate Change, 9th March, 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2552.html

[4] Romm, J., “Rate of climate change to soar by 2020s, with Arctic warming 1°F per decade”, Climate Progress, 10th March, 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/10/3631632/climate-change-rate/

[5] Smith, et al. op cit., Supplementary Information,, Table SI-4, http://0-www.nature.com.es.library.du.ac.bd/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2552.html#supplementary-information

[6] Lynas, M., “Six steps to hell”, The Guardian, 23rd April 2007, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

[7] Spratt, D. and Dunlop, I., “Dangerous Climate Warming: Myth, reality and risk management”, Oct 2014, p. 5, http://www.climatecodered.org/p/myth-and-reality.html

[8] Thompson, A., “Arctic Sea Ice Dwindling Toward Record Winter Low“, Climate Central, 11th March, 2015, https://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-record-winter-low-18764

[9] Vidal, J. “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years”, The Guardian, 17th September, 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice

[10] Mahony, P., “Climate Action”, 9th March, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/03/09/climate-action/

Images

Main image: Global warming © Gorshkov13 | Dreamstime.com

Figure 1 image: Smith, et al. op cit., Figure 4, p.3. (Used with permission.)

What can we do about climate change?

I’ve written extensively about our dire situation in relation to climate change. I’m not optimistic that we have time to turn the juggernaut around, but I believe we must do everything in our power in attempting to do so. I will be expanding on these comments over time. The actions are general in nature.

Become engaged, acknowledge the crisis, and fight for change

Politicians in a democracy seldom lead on difficult issues; they generally react to the demands of the electorate if their hold on power is at stake. We face a potentially overwhelming threat to our way of life and the welfare of future generations and other species. We must demand emergency action from politicians who establish laws and national strategies, in terms of energy generating infrastructure and other essential measures.

Here are some thoughts from former coal, oil and gas industry executive, Ian Dunlop [1]:

“Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions. We face nothing less than a global emergency, which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan . . . This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood . . . In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.”

Someone who has acknowledged the dangers and is taking decisive action is former New York mayor and billionaire businessman and philanthropist,Michael Bloomberg. He is a co-chair of the Risky Business Project, which focuses on quantifying and publicising the economic risks from the impacts of climate change. His fellow co-chairs are: former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush, Henry (Hank) Paulson; and Tom Steyer, philanthropist and founder of Farallon Capital Management.

Those parties engaged on the issue must include media outlets. The Guardian newspaper has decided to place climate change “front and centre“, and others must do the same. [2] Petty political squabbles and celebrity gossip may help to sell media products, but they generally do not pose a threat to the future of the planet.

A critical threshold?

Convincing others of the need to act can play a key role. One person convinces another, two convince two, four convince four, and so on. In that way, the message can spread exponentially until politicians take notice. “People power” has overturned governments and brought about fundamental social change, and it can do so again.

It may not be necessary to overthrow a government, but if they know that their future power relies on them acting urgently and effectively in relation to climate change, then they will do so.

Political scientist Erica Chenoweth has analysed data on the overthrow of governments, and has reported that between 1940 and 2006:

“No single campaign in that period failed after they’d achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population.” [3]

Emission-reduction measures by individuals, although helpful, will not be enough. Social commentator and author, Clive Hamilton has quoted professor of social sciences at Yale-NUC College Singapore, Michael Maniates: [4]

“A privatization and individualization of responsibility for environmental problems shifts blame from state elites and powerful producer groups to more amorphous culprits like ‘human nature’ or ‘all of us’”

Ignore denialists

Skepticism is an essential element of science. However, generally, the more active climate change denialists do not appear to be true skeptics; they seem to oppose meaningful action for ideological reasons and/or to pursue vested interests. My article “Relax, have a cigarette and forget about climate change” outlines sophisticated PR techniques used by the fossil fuel sector, and before them the tobacco industry, to falsely create doubt amongst the general population about valid, crucial scientific findings. [5]

Grasp change

When we advanced from the horse and carriage to the automobile, blacksmiths lost their jobs. However, new jobs were created. In 2008, the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) and the Australian Conservation Foundation estimated that Australia could create around 850,000 new jobs  by 2030 by investing in green technologies, including renewable energy. [6] (Many opportunities will have passed by since then, but others will be available now and in the future.)

Keep an open mind

Don’t ignore potential components of the solution, such as expanded use of carbon-free nuclear power generation, the dangers of which appear to have been significantly overstated. I will expand on that issue in the near future.

Other actions

Leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen has advocated the use of the courts by those with the power to do so, to force governments to act. [7] Bill McKibben of 350.org has a strategy of convincing pension funds and other institutional investors to cease investing in fossil fuel interests.

As I have written elsewhere, a general move away from animal agriculture is an essential mitigation measure. [8] Governments must play a key role by creating price signals through carbon pricing mechanisms such as a carbon tax that include the agriculture sector. When its environmental cost is factored into the end price, a product such as beef would be considered a luxury, with a substantial reduction in demand and supply. A similar approach must apply to other products. All proceeds from a carbon tax can be returned to the community through personal income tax reductions and adjustments to welfare payments (as advocated by James Hansen).

Conclusion

In terms of lifestyle threats and challenges, the post-World War 2 “baby boomer” generation, and those who have followed, may have become complacent relative to those who came before them. We may, understandably, fear existential threats to the point of ignoring, rather than facing, them. It is essential that we break free of that complacency, and act to retain a habitable planet.

Author: 

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References:

[1] Spratt, D., “As Tony Abbott launches all-out war on climate action, what’s the plan?”, Climate Code Red, 28 January, 2014, http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateCodeRed+%28climate+code+red%29

[2] Rusbridger, A., “Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre”, The Guardian, 6th March, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger

[3] Fisher, M., “Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators”, The Washington Post, 5th November, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/

[4] Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 110

[5] Mahony, P., “Relax, have a cigarette and forget about climate change”,Viva la Vegan, 7 Aug, 2012, http://vivalavegan.net/community/articles/358-relax-have-a-cigarette-and-forget-about-climate-change.html

[6]  ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation, 2008, “Green Gold Rush: How ambitious environmental policy can make Australia a leader in the global race for green jobs”,http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Green_Gold_Rush.pdf

[7] Hansen, J, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009, p.291

[8] Mahony, P., “Climate Change and Animal Agriculture” (undated page), Terrastendo, https://terrastendo.net/the-issues/climate-change/

Image: 

People s Climate March NYC © Erica Schroeder | Dreamstime.com

Foreword

This article first appeared on the Viva la Vegan website on 7th February, 2012 with the title “Solar or Soy, which is better for the planet, Part 2“. The title reflected the fact that it was an introduction to subsequent articles on the great elephant in the room of climate change, animal agriculture, but it did not deal with that issue specifically.

The contents of this article are very relevant to our current climate change crisis, which (not surprisingly) reflects a significant deterioration since the article was published. Awareness and concern about the issue seem to have increased enormously since then, but do we have the time or the political will to turn the juggernaut around and retain a habitable planet?

Should the deterioration in the state of our climate come as a surprise?

Perhaps not when you consider the existence of climate feedback mechanisms and the fact that, between 1998 and 2013, the oceans had been gaining heat at a rate equivalent to about four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Worse still, the rate had suddenly increased to around twelve per second during 2013. [1] Between 1998 and early 2015, those rates resulted in heat equivalent to more than two billion Hiroshima bombs being accumulated. [2]

There are substantial year-on-year variations in heat uptake by the oceans, but even at a rate of four Hiroshima bombs per second, why wouldn’t the planet’s climate system move away from the relatively benign conditions that had been experienced during the 10,000 years of human civilisation? Of particular note is the fact that the current concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases is more than thirty percent higher than at any time in at least the last one million years. [3]

Climate change author David Spratt, whose work is featured in the article, recently cited leading US climate scientist Dr Michael E. Mann, who has reported that new calculations “indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to 2C° by 2036”. [4] By the time that temperature has been reached, key climate change tipping points are likely to have been breached, creating a very real risk of even higher temperatures and runaway climate change over which humans will have little or no control. [5]

Our efforts to avoid such a scenario are limited by the fact that we have created a potentially tragic Catch-22 in the form of aerosols generated by the burning of fossil fuels. Aerosols are airborne particulates such as sulphates, nitrates, and dust from smoke and manufacturing. They have a cooling effect, sometimes referred to as “global dimming”, which has offset some of the warming effects of greenhouse gases. They only remain in the atmosphere for around ten days, so their cooling impact will be short-lived in any transition away from fossil fuels to less carbon-intensive energy sources. This dilemma is referred to by David Spratt and Dr James Hansen as a “Faustian bargain”, alluding to Doctor Faustus of folklore and legend, who sold his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge and power. Based on research from organisations such as NASA and CSIRO, Spratt has suggested that aerosol cooling is in the range of 0.5-1.2°C. [6]

Introduction

In Part 1 of this series (Solar or Soy, Part 1), I wrote of the dramatic increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the accelerating pace of such increases in recent times.

In this article, I outline the impact of such changes in terms of tipping points, runaway climate change and the need for emergency action.

The current situation in regard to climate change could hardly be more dire. Paradoxically, the response from decision makers, relative to the dangers, could hardly be more muted. I will comment on the lack of an effective response in a future article.

I feel the need to report on these issues in the same way that I would feel the need to scream out to people who were in danger of being hit by a truck careering towards them, of which they were unaware. Alerting them to the impending danger may enable them to save themselves.

In addition to impacts on the current human population of our planet, we must also consider future generations and other species.

As a reminder of the rapid growth in greenhouse gases, here is a chart depicting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since 1960:

Figure 1: Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide [7]

Remember that carbon dioxide concentrations never exceeded 300 ppm (parts per million) in the previous 1,000,000 years. They have increased from around 315 ppm to around 390 ppm in just 50 years.

Over the past ten years, the average annual rate of increase was 2.07 ppm, which is more than double the rate of increase in the 1960s. [8]

On the Edge of a Precipice

David Spratt is a co-author (with Philip Sutton) of a groundbreaking book published in 2008, entitled “Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action”.

Subsequent to the book’s release, he commented as follows:

“ . . . the world stands . . . on the edge of a precipice . . . beyond which human actions will no longer be able to control in any meaningful way the trajectory of the climate system . . .” [9]

The precipice that David Spratt referred to derives from amplifying feedbacks in the climate system, causing us to approach tipping points beyond which catastrophic climate change is almost certain unless dramatic mitigation efforts commence without delay (assuming it is not already too late.)

In the words of Dr James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University [Footnote 1]:

“Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks – as when a microphone is placed too close to a speaker, which amplifies any little sound picked up by the microphone, which then picks up the amplification, which is again picked up by the speaker, until very quickly the noise becomes unbearable.” [10]

Figure 2: Feedbacks in a sound system [11] and in human-induced climate change [12]

In the second image, the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) increases temperatures, which in turn:

1. increase the level of water vapour (a powerful greenhouse gas) through evaporation, along with the air’s capacity to hold that water vapour;
2. reduce the area of ice sheets; and
3. release GHGs from (for example) melting permafrost.

Each of those reactions (some of which I expand on below) then warms the atmosphere further, causing the process to continue and amplify.

Here are some further comments on the issue:

Dr James Hansen, 2009 [13]:

“How can we be on the precipice of such consequences while local climate change remains small compared to day-to-day weather fluctuations? The urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics can cause rapid changes out of humanity’s control.”

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

2010: “The further climate is pushed beyond the envelope of relative stability that has characterised the last several millennia, the greater becomes the risk of passing tipping points that will result in profound changes in climate, vegetation, ocean circulation or ice sheet stability.” [14]

2011: “Climate change does not proceed smoothly for a given change in radiative forcing from changing greenhouse gas levels. There is a risk of abrupt changes as the climate shifts from one state to another as a result of feedbacks in the climate system. . . . Their hazard lies in the fact that, once they have occurred, it may be hard for the planet to return to its previous steady state. For example, once Greenland’s ice cap is committed to melting it is unlikely to reform for thousands of years, leading eventually to sea level rises of several metres. [15]

International Energy Agency 2011(as reported by the Huffington Post):

“The world is on the brink of irreversible climate change, according to a report released on Wednesday by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Called the World Energy Outlook 2011, the analysis is the most thorough ever produced on the effects of releasing fossil fuels into the atmosphere. According to the research, in five years global warming will hit a point of no return after which it will be impossible to reverse the process.” [16]

Professor Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The University of Adelaide, as reported in 2008:

“Two degrees has the potential to lead to three or four degrees because of carbon-cycle feedbacks.” [17] [Footnote 2]

Shortcomings in some conventional measures of potential climate change impacts

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has considered fast feedbacks in establishing relatively conservative estimates of climate change impacts. Such feedbacks include: water vapour; cloud cover; snow cover; and sea ice extent; and are considered to modify the effects of increasing temperatures on short timescales.

However, Hansen and others argue that slow feedbacks must also be considered, which greatly increase the potential impacts. They include: ice sheet growth and decay; changes in vegetation cover; permafrost melting; and carbon-cycle feedbacks. [18]

In relation to the IPCC’s reports, Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, has stated that they are “painfully conservative” because the IPPC “works by consensus and includes government representatives from the United States, China and Saudi Arabia, all of whom must assent to every word of every finding.” [19]

Writing in the Scientific American in 2008, Michael D Lemonick commented as follows on the issue (with my underline): [20]

“The problem is that conventional projections for how warm things will get come out of a calculation everyone knows is wrong. Called the Charney sensitivity, it estimates how much the global mean temperature will rise if atmospheric CO2 is doubled from its preindustrial levels, before people began burning coal and oil on a grand scale”

 “The calculation does take into account some feedback mechanisms that can modify the effects of increasing temperatures on short timescales – changes in water vapor, clouds and sea ice, for example. But for the sake of simplicity, it assumes no change in other, longer-term factors, including changes in glaciation and vegetation; in particulates, such as dust; and in the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, which diminishes as sea temperature rises.”

Many, and possibly all, of the fast and slow feedbacks are interrelated.

Examples of feedbacks and potential tipping points

Reduction in area and volume of Arctic sea ice

Sea ice is defined as “Any form of ice found at sea which has originated from the freezing of sea water” [21] It is floating, rather than fixed to land. As described in “Scientific American”, “As ice retreats in a warming world, more dark surface is exposed to absorb solar radiation, which makes the world even warmer, melting more ice.” [22] Atmospheric or ocean warming leads to a loss of sea ice, which in turn causes more warming, then more melting, more warming and so on. For a time, the melting ice may reduce the surrounding ocean temperature, partly offsetting the impact of increased absorption of solar radiation. However, the effect is relatively short-lived, and the higher melting rate soon returns.

That process may be exemplified by the dramatic reduction in Arctic summer sea ice in 2007. In that and the previous year combined, the area of sea ice declined by 22 per cent, compared to an average reduction of 7 per cent per decade between 1979 and 2005. [23] The situation improved over the next three years, but in 2011 the area of sea ice again reduced dramatically. [24]

A key factor in the melting of Arctic sea ice and polar ice caps (refer below) is the non-uniformity of temperature changes. The temperature changes at the poles are around double the global average and about three times the change at the equator. [25]

According to David Spratt:

“ . . . average temperatures in Siberia, Alaska and western Canada are now 3ºC to 4ºC warmer than 50 years ago.” [26]

“The danger is that an ice-free state in the Arctic summer will kick the climate system into run-on warming and create an aberrant new climate state many, many degrees hotter. The Arctic sea-ice is the first domino and it is falling fast. Other dominos will inevitably fall unless we stop emitting greenhouse gases and cool the planet to get the Arctic sea-ice back. Those dominoes include the Greenland ice sheet.” [27]

Disintegration of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

The Greenland ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometres long, 1,100 kilometres across at its widest point and more than 2 kilometres thick. [28] James Hansen has reported that, as recently as the 1990’s, it was neither gaining nor losing mass at a substantial rate. As of 2009 it was losing around 250 cubic kilometres of ice per year in a dynamic wet melting process, while Antarctica was losing around half that amount. “The rate of ice sheet mass loss has doubled during the present decade [commencing in 2000].”

Dr Hansen has also stated, “Sea level is going up at a rate of about 3 centimetres (about 1 and 1/5 inches) per decade. But if ice sheet disintegration continues to double every decade, we will be faced with sea level rise of several meters this century. IPCC has estimated only modest rates of sea level rise this century, much less than one meter. But IPCC treats sea level change basically as a linear process. It is more realistic, I believe, that ice sheet disintegration will be non-linear, which is typical of a system that can collapse.” [29]

Figure 3: Greenland’s ice sheet’s diminishing reflectiveness

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported in December 2011 that in the past decade, satellite observations show a drop in Greenland’s reflectiveness. The darker surface absorbs more sunlight, accelerating melting. They have stated, “The map above shows the difference between the percent of sunlight Greenland reflected in the summer of 2011 and the average percent it reflected between 2000 and 2006. Virtually the entire ice sheet is colored in shades of blue, indicating that the ice sheet reflected as much as 20% less light this summer than it did in the early part of the last decade.” [30]

British glaciologists have recorded water pouring down one of hundreds (possibly thousands) of moulins (craters) on Greenland’s ice cap at an estimated rate of 42 million litres per day. It was reported that Greenland is losing enough water each year to cover Germany to a depth of one metre. [31]

Melting Permafrost

Permafrost is frozen soil (once considered to be permanently frozen), tens of metres deep. It covers twenty per cent of the world’s land mass, with half of it being in Siberia. [32]

The permafrost extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It stores massive amounts of carbon, which can be released in the form of carbon dioxide and methane as the permafrost melts. The IPCC estimates that methane is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20 year period. [See Footnote 3 for a more recent estimate.]

David Spratt has reported as follows (with my underlines): [33]

• The rapid regional warming consequent to the sea-ice loss also has grave repercussions for the permafrost.
• The National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder predicts that half of the permafrost in the Arctic north will thaw to a depth of 3 metres by 2050.
• Glaciologist Ted Scambos says, ‘That’s a serious runaway … a catastrophe lies buried under the permafrost.’
• Permafrost specialist Sergei Zimov says: ‘Permafrost areas hold 500 billion tonnes of carbon, which can fast turn into greenhouse gases … If you don’t stop emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere … the Kyoto Protocol will seem like childish prattle.’
• The western Siberian peat bog is amongst the fastest-warming places on the planet, and Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University calls the melting of frozen bogs an ‘ecological landslide that is probably irreversible’.
• In August 2008, Örjan Gustafsson, the Swedish leader of the International Siberian Shelf Study confirmed that methane was now also bubbling through seawater from permafrost on the seabed.
• So the question is no longer whether the permafrost will start to melt, but if and when the time-bomb will go off. When it does, it will sweep the climate system away from our capacity to stop further dramatic ‘tipping points’ being passed.
• All the carbon in the permafrost is equivalent to twice the total amount of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so losing even a significant portion of it will create a very different planet from the one we know.
• Scientists are warning that the temperature at which it will be triggered is closer that think. Research published in mid-2008 by Dmitry Khvorostyanov shows the trigger is warming in the Arctic of around 9ºC, and that once initiated it will maintain itself, leading to three-quarters of the carbon being released within a century. It could happen as early as mid-century. [Footnote 4]
  

In The Independent of 13 December, 2011, Steve Connor reported as follows in relation to methane being released from permafrost in the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (with my underlines): [34]

• Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane . . . have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.
• The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the east Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.
• Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks . . . said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.
• He said, “We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some of the plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal.”

Activation of methane hydrates/clathrates

The potential activation of methane hydrates or clathrates sitting below sediment on the ocean floor represents a similar threat to that of carbon stored in permafrost. Clathrates are frozen water molecules containing frozen methane or carbon dioxide molecules. Warming oceans can potentially cause those ice crystals to thaw and release the carbon dioxide and methane.

How much methane is stored as clathrates on the ocean floor?

Speaking on ABC Radio National’s Ockham’s Razor program on 24 May, 2009 [35], Melbourne-based computer programmer Geoff Hudson cited a report by Bruce Buffet and David Archer of the University of Chicago’s Department of Geophysical Sciences [36], in which they estimated the stores of methane to weigh 3,000 billion tonnes. That is six times the weight of carbon estimated to be stored in permafrost, as referred to above.

Hudson reported, “releasing all that methane would be like raising the carbon dioxide level to 70,000 parts per million, more than 100 times worse than the 540 ppm said to the point of no return.” 

Hudson nominated a slowing in the flow of the Gulf Stream as a potential trigger for what is known as the “Clathrate Gun”, involving a process of amplifying feedbacks resulting from some initial thawing of methane clathrates. The Gulf Stream is the massive flow of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to the North Atlantic. [Footnote 5]

If the flow were to slow sufficiently, there would be excess warm water remaining in the Gulf of Mexico, potentially thawing clathrates that exist on the sea floor there. He stated:

“Once the temperature gets too high, the ices melt. That will release hundreds of cubic kilometres of methane presently sitting on the floor of the Gulf. The trigger for the Clathrate Gun might be just south of New Orleans.”

Hudson noted that Dr Bill Turrell of the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, Scotland observed a 20% slowing in the flow of the Gulf Stream five years prior to the Ockham’s Razor broadcast.

As an important aside, with the impact of warming oceans on storm activity, he noted, “Armed with this information, the origin of the strength of Hurricane Katrina is obvious.”

The need for emergency action

With climate feedbacks seemingly leading to exponential growth in greenhouse gas concentrations, it is essential that key decision makers treat the issue as the emergency that it is. We need to urgently transform our energy systems to be emissions free, draw down existing atmospheric carbon dioxide through massive levels of reforestation, and reduce emissions of non-carbon dioxide climate forcing agents, such as methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone and black carbon. Those issues will be referred to in future articles.

In recent years, governments have spent trillions of dollars to save financial institutions and struggling economies. During World War 2, military expenditures as a percentage of GDP in the US, UK, Germany and Japan were as high as 42%, 55%, 70% and 76% respectively. [37] However, governments are yet to tackle climate change in a meaningful way. Emission reduction targets such as Australia’s figure of 5% are miniscule relative to what is required.

In his article “As emission rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet”, earth and paleoclimate scientist at Australian National University, Dr Andrew Glikson, stated as follows (with my underline): [38]

“Contrarian claims by sceptics, misrepresenting direct observations in nature and ignoring the laws of physics, have been adopted by neo-conservative political parties. A corporate media maintains a ‘balance’ between facts and fiction. The best that governments seem to do is devise cosmetic solutions, or promise further discussions, while time is running out. 

Good planets are hard to come by.”

A final word from James Hansen on tipping points

“Animal and plant species are already being stressed by climate change. Species can migrate in response to movement of their climatic zone, but some species in polar and alpine regions will be pushed off the planet. As climate zones move farther and faster, climate change will become the primary cause of species extinction. The tipping point for life on the planet will occur when so many interdependent species are lost that ecosystems collapse.” [39]

Footnotes

1. Dr Hansen has since retired from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies so as to more freely campaign on climate change.
2. In 2014, Barry Brook became Professor of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania.
3. The emissions of different gases can be aggregated by converting them to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e).  They are converted by multiplying the mass of emissions by the appropriate global warming potentials (GWPs).  GWPs represent the relative warming effect of a unit mass of the gas when compared with the same mass of CO2 over a specific period.  For methane, at the date of this republication, the GWPs used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), allowing for climate-carbon feedbacks, are 34 for 100 years and 86 for 20 years.
4. Temperature increases at the poles to date have been multiples of the global average.
5. Hudson’s estimate is significantly higher than potential impact of carbon released from permafrost, as referred to earlier in this article. The reason may be the application of: (a) methane’s GWP (referred to in Footnote 3); and (b) differences between atmospheric and sea level pressures; in his calculations.

Author

Paul Mahony

References

[1]     Painting, R., “The Oceans Warmed up Sharply in 2013: We’re Going to Need a Bigger Graph”, Skeptical Science, 31 January 2014, http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Oceans-Warmed-up-Sharply-in-2013-We-are-Going-to-Need-a-Bigger-Graph.html

[2]       Skeptical Science, “Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs per Second”, https://4hiroshimas.com/

[3]       Miller, C., quoted at NASA, “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs for the Planet”, http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

[4]       Mann, M.E., “Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036”, Scientific American, 18^th March, 2014, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/, cited in Spratt, D., “Two degrees of warming closer than you may think”, Climate Code Red, 6^th February, 2015, http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/02/two-degrees-of-warming-closer-than-you.html#more

[5]       Spratt, D. and Dunlop, I., “Dangerous Climate Warming: Myth, reality and risk management”, Oct 2014, p. 5, http://www.climatecodered.org/p/myth-and-reality.html

[6]       Spratt, D., “Two degrees of warming closer than you may think”, Climate Code Red, 6th February, 2015, http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/02/two-degrees-of-warming-closer-than-you.html#more

[7]       Scripps Institution of Oceanography, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Monthly Data for the Atmospheric CO2 Since 1958, via http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/ (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[8]       Data is calculated by CO2Now using annual growth rates published by NOAA-ESRL based on its measurements of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory).  Refer to http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/ (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[9]       Spratt, D.,“Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’ Conference 2008: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, 10 October, 2008, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, http://links.org.au/node/683 (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[10]      Hansen, J, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009, p. IX

[11]     Sound system image courtesy of TOA Corporation, http://www.toa.jp/soundoh_wiki/index.php?Soundindex%2FAcoustic%20feedback

[12]      CSIRO, “Science and Solutions for Australia: Climate Change”, 2011, Extract of Fig. 2.3, p. 22, http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Climate-Change-Book.aspx

[13]      Hansen, J, op cit.

[14]      CSIRO, op cit., p. 15

[15]      Whetton, P, “Future Australian Climate Scenarios”, Chapter 3, p. 43 “Climate Change”, CSIRO Publishing, 2011, Cleugh, H; Stafford Smith, M; Battaglia, M; Graham, P (Editors), http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=6558 (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[16]      Vale, P,“Climate Change: World Reaches Point Of No Return In Five Years, Say Scientists”, The Huffington Post UK, 9 Nov, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/09/climate-change-five-years_n_1084052.html (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[17]      Spratt, D, 2008, op cit.

[18]      Spratt, D and Sutton, P, “Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action”, Scribe, 2008, p. 47

[19]      Spratt, D, 2008, op cit.

[20]      Lemonick, Michael D, “Beyond the Tipping Point”, Scientific American Earth 3.0, 6 October 2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2 <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-beyond-the-co2>  (Preview) (Full article accessed 4 February 2012)

[21]      Data Buoy Cooperation Panel, http://www.dbcp.noaa.gov/seashelp/HtmlIceGlossary.htm (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[22]      Lemonick, Michael D, op cit.

[23]      Spratt, D and Sutton, P, op cit., p. 13

[24]      Raloff, J., “Science News of the Year 2011 – Environment”, Science News, 31 December 2011, Vol. 180 Issue 14, p 25, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/336997/title/2011_Science_News_of_the_Year_Environment

[25]      Hansen, J., op cit., p. 38.

[26]      Spratt, D and Lawson, D, “Bubbling our way to the Apocalypse”, Rolling Stone, November 2008, pp. 53-55 and republished on the Climate Code Red website, 4th September 2010

[27]      Spratt, D. 2008, op cit.

[28]      Spratt, D and Sutton, P, op cit., p. 20.

[29]      Hansen, J., op cit., pp. 255-256 and p. 287. (An alternative ice loss figure to the quoted figure of 250 cubic km from p. 287 had been shown on p. 255 but the correct figure has been confirmed as 250 cubic km in emails of 15/6/11 and 16/6/11.)

[30]      Lyndsey, R, “Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker”, Climate Watch Magazine, NOAA Climate Services, 30 December 2011, http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/greenland-ice-sheet-getting-darker-2 (including map) (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[31]      Salter, J. “Scientists capture dramatic footage of Arctic glaciers melting in hours”, The Telegraph, 20 February 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4734859/Scientists-capture-dramatic-footage-of-Arctic-glaciers-melting-in-hours.html (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[32]      Spratt, D and Lawson, D, op cit.

[33]      Spratt, D, 2008, op cit.

[34]      Connor, S, “Vast methane ‘plumes’ seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats”, The Independent, 13 December, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[35]      Hudson, G, “The trigger for the clathrate gun” Ockham’s Razor, ABC Radio National, 24 May, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/the-trigger-for-the-clathrate-gun/3152002 (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[36]      Buffet, B and Archer, D, “Global inventory of methane clathrate: sensitivity to changes in the deep ocean”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 227 (2004) 185 – 199, http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/buffett.2004.clathrates.pdf (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[37]      Spratt, D and Sutton, P, op cit., p. 252

[38]      Glikson, A, “As emissions rise, we may be heading for an ice-free planet”, The Conversation, 18 January, 2012, http://theconversation.edu.au/as-emissions-rise-we-may-be-heading-for-an-ice-free-planet-4893 (Accessed 4 February 2012)

[39]      Hansen, J, “Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming”, Huffington Post, 23/6/08, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html (Accessed 4 February 2012)

Images

Feature image: Harvepino, “Greenland and Iceland from Earth’s orbit in space. 3D illustration with detailed planet surface. Elements of this image furnished by NASA”, Shutterstock

Ocean heat image in Foreword: See reference 2

Figure 1: See reference 7

Figure 2: See references 11 & 12

Figure 3: Map by NOAA’s climate.gov team, based on NASA satellite data processed by Jason Box, Byrd Polar Research Center, the Ohio State University, from Lindsey, R., “Greenland Ice Sheet Getting Darker“, op. cit.