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