Musing on sea level rises

A friend of mine is presenting about climate policy this week, and
wanted some visuals about sea level rises under climate change

Current estimates of total sea level rise are for 2 metres in 100 years
- from all sources in both hemispheres. Will Steffen at ANU has gone on
record saying that, although unlikely, a 4 metre rise cannot be ruled
out; Jim Hansen is saying similar things.

Yet it can be hard to get people to realise the severity of a 2 metre
change. Most westerners are pretty OK (apart from some people in
beachfront suburbs) and have the money anyway to build levees, etc.

The web site http://flood.firetree.net/ has a great mapping tool, but an
average 2 meter rise missed the real danger - tidal surges.

Greater expected volatility of weather means we get bigger tidal surges.
When you combine these with a 2 metre rise in sea levels, you get a lot
of coastal flood stories, with the world's big deltas being regularly
covered in salt water. That will lead to food disasters, as some of the
world's great food bowls are deltas (Nile, Red River, Mekong, Yangtze,
Indus, Ganges/Bramaputra) meaning a disproportionate number of people
are exposed to a small change in sea levels. It is true that we may be
able to adapt crops to more saline conditions (a great hope), but lots
of the deltas will be flooded too frequently for even that.

Plus a lot of big cities will get flooded regularly. Even in London one
forecast is that the Thames Barrier will be breached by 2030, flooding
large areas of East London (and thousands of dwellings have been allowed
to be built behind the Barrier on the basis that they are now protected
from flooding risk!). Translate that to calamities in Guangzhou,
Shanghai, Nanjing, Tianjin, Saigon, Kolkotta, Chennai, Mumbai, Lagos,
Miami, New Orleans - 140 million people just there - and we have some
big disaster issues.

The reason the Arctic sea ice story is so important is ....

1. It's a key "canary in the coal mine". The amazing rapidity of change
in summer sea ice extent is an indicator of climactic changes globally.
With the rate of global greenhouse gas emission increases having gone up
sine the 1990s from an average of 1.1% p.a. to an average of 3.1% this
decade (now 3.4% according to a report I saw today) it's perhaps not
surprising that the whole thing is getting away from us.

2. The sea ice disappearance is one of the most significant tipping
points because of the loss of its albedo effect - a large slab of the
earth goes from being a heat reflector to a heat absorber. Not good.
It's also a harbinger of the mother of all tipping points - the thawing
of clathrates under the Arctic sea and the consequent vast release of
methane gas.

Check out these videos from a leading Arctic researcher that show what
methane gas seepage looks like:
http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/walter/videopage.xml. Sort of amusing
really, but methane gas is, of course, 20 times more potent a greenhouse
gas than carbon dioxide. Swedish scientists are already reporting an
increase in the ocean bubbling you see.

That means a lot more 40+ degree weeks in Australian summers, and a lot
more bushfire.

Sean

Three sobering facts about climate change

Courtesy of the Environmental Defense Funds
(http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=35792)

35%
Increase in the global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of
fossil fuels since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1992.

1000 years
Length of time changes in the earth's surface temperature, rainfall, and
sea level will remain even after carbon dioxide emissions are completely
stopped.

US$427 million
Amount spent by the (US) oil and coal industries in the first six months
of 2008 in political contributions, lobbying expenditures and
advertising to oppose climate action.

A response to UK Met office fears that 'distorted' climate change claims undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions

'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could
undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims
----------------------------

I have the highest regard for the Met Office; this article is a useful
reminder to be careful about making predictions based on immediate
events, and a very useful reminder to remain sober in our deliberations.

The danger, of course, to much sobriety has an enervating rather than
directive influence on political decision-makers.

Vicky Pope doesn't deny the possibility of an ice-free Arctic by 2013
(as suggested by a number of researchers - see
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0807/full/climate.2008.63.html, and
Jim Hansen's writings).

Her argument is about people suggesting calamity when there is still
much doubt.

However, for those of us trying to weigh up risks, the question is more
how likely is the fast melt scenario and what does it mean. There is no
doubt that there is a consistent decrease in summer ice cover in the
Arctic (The US National Snow and Ice Data Center, for example, reports a
consistent 3.1% p.a. decrease in Arctic ice cover over the last 30 years).

There is also no doubt that there has been a serious increase in the
rate of summer melting in recent years that, if it kept up, would result
in disappearing summer ice cover in a few short years. There also seems
little doubt that if summer ice disappears entirely we lose an important
climate stabilising factor (the ice's albedo effect) and the risks of
more rapid climate change then increase exponentially.

The debate is about the likelihood of that recent increased rate of
melting being a blip or a trend. From a political decision-makers point
of view, there are enough scientists arguing that it's highly likely (if
only because of the range of ancillary climate indicators that alert us
to more rapid climate changes than expected) that we should treat this
as a significant probability.

If we were flying a passenger aeroplane that would be enough risk for us
to take emergency evasive action. That's what we need to do.

Great Age article on the Australia fires and climate change

Fires the deadly inevitability of climate change
Freya Mathews
The Age
February 10, 2009

The disaster challenges the Government to accept evident truths.

IT IS only a couple of years since scientists first told us we could
expect a whole new order of fires in south-eastern Australia, fires of
such ferocity they would simply engulf the towns in their path. And here
they are.

The fires we saw on Saturday were not "once in a thousand years" or even
"once in a hundred years" events, as our political leaders keep
repeating. They were the face of climate change in our part of the world.

These fires are simply the result of the new conditions that climate
change has introduced here: raised temperatures, giving us hotter days
than we have ever experienced before combined with lower rainfall giving
us a drier landscape. Let's stop using the word "drought", with its
implication that dry weather is the exception. The desiccation of the
landscape here is the new reality. It is now our climate.

Rest of article at ....
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fires-the-deadly-inevitability-of-climate-change-20090209-8289.html?page=-1

Two useful quotes from Davos 2009

1. Jeremy Oppenheim, global director of climate-change initiatives at
McKinsey: "The transition to a low-carbon economy, if done right, has
the potential to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and bring
benefits to consumers. The 'costs' of this transition are in fact
investments in new, 21st-century infrastructure that will pay off for
generations to come – just as the 'costs' of investments in
electrification, highways, and the internet paid off with very high
returns for the societies that made them in the 20th century."

2. The World Economic Forum's "Green Investing Report" was released at
Davos. It calls for annual global investment of £360 billion in
green-energy infrastructure including wind, solar power, geothermal
energy and biofuels. http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/ghg/index.htm

Co-author Michael Liebreich of London-based New Energy Finance:
"Clean-energy opportunities can generate significant economic returns.
The report shows that even after a tumultuous 2008, an index of the
world's 90 leading clean-energy companies had a five-year
compounded-annualised return of almost 10%, unmatched by the world's
main stock indices."

From
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5627461.ece

Pathway To Low-Carbon Economy - new McKinsey Report, Jan 2009

Just out. A very useful report to quote; it backs up arguments about
returns for different forms of "investment" in mitigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Escaping climate disaster 'affordable', says report

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/escaping-climate-disaster-affordable-report/article-178818

It is possible to maintain global warming below 2°C at an overall cost
of less than 1% of global GDP if swift action is taken across different
sectors, a study published yesterday (26 January) by consulting firm
McKinsey shows.

See full report at http://globalghgcostcurve.bymckinsey.com/

There is strong political consensus that a switch to a low-carbon
economy is required both to combat climate change and for industries to
remain competitive. But the economic slowdown has prompted fresh fears
that the austere financial situation could slow down development of the
new technologies.

In October 2006, Nicholas Stern published an influential report arguing
that keeping global warming under control would cost much less than
dealing with the consequences of climate change.

McKinsey's new report provides analysis of more than 200 opportunities
for reducing emissions across 10 sectors and 21 regions.

It stresses that immediate, cross-sector action is a prerequisite for
achieving the necessary reductions, because every year of delay will
both increase emissions and lock the economy into a high-carbon path for
the future.

The report puts together a global cost curve for greenhouse gas
abatement, comparing the options for moving to a low-carbon economy at a
cost below €60 per tonne of carbon emissions. It identifies three main
sectors where emissions can be reduced most cost-effectively.

The biggest reductions, 14 gigatonnes (Gt) or some 40% of global
potential, can be achieved by designing vehicles, electrical appliances
and buildings that consume less energy, according to McKinsey.

Compared to the Stern report, which estimated the cost of inaction to be
between five and 20% of global GDP, McKinsey believe investing in the
shift to a low-carbon economy is significantly cheaper, and potentially
as low as 0.5%.

The study underlines the urgency of action in all countries and all
sectors, while participants argued that reaching a global agreement this
year is imperative.

Marrying governments and private capital to address climate change

The global financial crisis has highlighted the risk of systemic faults
in the management of long-term investments. The failure to address those
risks is harming the sustainability of financial markets, causing
financial hardship for millions of people around the world.

Last month's UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan has highlighted the
systemic risk we face with climate change.

Without taking adequate steps to address that risk, we face the prospect
of another dire economic contraction as its effects take hold. The Stern
Report estimated the current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions
would lead to a reduction in global consumption per head of 20%. That
would have a devastating impact on the global economy, causing a massive
reduction in returns for long-term investors and pension funds.

Unfortunately, global emissions are currently rising at 3.1% per annum,
a significant increase on the decade leading up to Kyoto ratification.
At the same time, the Chair of the International Panel on Climate Change
has said that 2015 is the last year in which "the world can afford a net
rise in greenhouse gas emissions, after which 'very sharp reductions'
are required".

A range of scientific testimony at Poznan said that the world can still
avoid "catastrophic" climate change — if it acts quickly to cut
emissions and switch to low-carbon energy.

Decisions made at Poznan to secure a firmer carbon price are important;
but implementation is going to take time. Both Poznan participants and
the parallel EU discussions on climate change acknowledged the need for
immediate major energy infrastructure investments to switch economies to
low-carbon energy. Many countries, already carrying large debt burdens
as a result of the financial crisis, will need the support of private
capital - pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance company
investments, and he like - to achieve the scale of the switch required.

Those same managers of capital need and want governments to take those
quick steps, primarily to protect the value of their investments but
also to ensure that the world into which their members and shareholders
will retire is one worth living in.

The European Commission's recent floating of a European renewables
supergrid project is an example of a project that will require
significant multi-government effort to facilitate the required investment.

The investor community, representing some US$121 trillion, now needs to
be engaged to work quickly with G20 governments to take the steps
required to ward off dangerous climate change and ensure the
sustainability of our world.

Only if we take a truly international approach to marrying the needs of
capital and society, will we develop the international solutions called
for to meet the challenge of climate change with the speed required.

UK Defence forces thinking missing the idea of civil society management

I've just been to a very interesting talk by the UK Army's Chief of the
General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, on how the Army has had to
adapt in recent years in the face of its role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lots of talk of the need to be better at "stabilisation" operations, to
work closely with local populations to build their capacity (he's proud
of what he believes the British Army achieved in Basra), and to ensure
that soldiers have "sustainable" deployments.

The issues not dealt with were about the overlap between managing civil
society in the wake of a war, including civil policing. This is, of
course, the great tragedy of the US deployment in Iraq; they stuffed it
up big time. Can you in fact have a "war" without having substantial
civil capability to support the rebuilding of the society attacked. The
question not explored today was what that capability has to look like in
the future.

Mind you, Dannatt was pretty upbeat about the UK experience in Iraq. His
argument is that it's taken them 6 years to be able to build up local
capability in their territory of work, versus some 38 years in Northern
Ireland, and similarly long stints in other spheres. Whether that rosy
view of southern Iraq is correct or not seems to be debatable,
especially as the US feels the need to move in an (admittedly smaller)
Army Brigade once the Brits move out.

The Israelis would seem to be repeating this tragedy in Gaza, using
"disproportionate" force as a "deterrent" when it's the management of
the society that's the issue in terms of security - gainful employment,
welfare and health services, rule of law, etc. All of which have been
actively subverted for many years by the nature of the Israeli hot/cold
pressure on trade and the movement of labour in and out of Gaza.

Civil management of damaged society (post-conflict Iraq, civil-war torn
Afghanistan, Somalia, Congo, Gaza) is the issue of the day; we need to
have more "joined up thinking", to use a Blairism, between the likes of
policing, development and employment policies.

Now this is a music clip that will bring a smile to your face!

Peter Oakley with The Zimmers, singing My Generation.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFrCUrEbY&feature=related

Very useful animated primer on the climate change tipping point we face

http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

Climate News morsels

"Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone though possible", the German government's expert, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, warned in an interview.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3907790,00.html

U.S. Geological Survey Report Forecasts Sea Level Rise to 4 feet by 2100
The new report uses studies not available to the UN's IPCC 2007 report.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17384

The most interesting scientific paper of the holiday season:

The world needs a significant investment now to kick-start climate change mitigation, according to a new study from European researchers.

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called "Near-linear cost increase to reduce climate-change risk", European researchers found a carbon dioxide “sweet spot”, where limiting the density of carbon in the atmosphere by a relatively small amount gave us a significantly higher probability of meeting climate change targets.

However, subsequent investments will have a more pronounced effect. And if we invest 2 per cent of global GDP in averting climate change, we have a 90 per cent chance of keeping global temperatures at 2 per cent above 19th century levels.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2233104/climate-change-investment
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/12/22/0802416106.abstract

Jim Hansen argues Japan is misusing CDM to increase coal use

"Hansen argues that the current emphasis on reduction targets combined with carbon trading schemes make it too easy for countries to wriggle out of their commitments. He cites the example of Japan's increasing coal use – the dirtiest fuel in terms of carbon emissions. To offset these increases in emissions Japan has bought credits from China through the clean development mechanism – an instrument set up by the Kyoto protocol – yet China's emissions have continued to increase rapidly. China has now overtaken the US as the biggest polluter in the world."

I wonder how aware the main japanese pension funds are about the long-term risks to their returns of climate change?

What is happening in Australia?!

How is it that the Rudd Government can have been doing so well in most areas, but have got targets for greenhouse gas emission cuts so wrong? At 5% by 2020 (on a 2000 base, not even 1990) it makes the country a laughing stock, using up precious international political capital built up by finally signing Kyoto last December.

Sure, it is better than the lost Howard years, but .... (the political leaders who deliberately blocked steps to address climate change will one day be regarded as climate criminals, along with those corporations who funded the anti-intellectual efforts to deliver changes needed to stop climate change).

The Australian Government has been arguing that its targets are "in fact better than Europe". This is based on saying that our "per capita cuts will be greater than European countries".

Yes, but Australia's base was so low (it being the world heavyweight champion emitter) that it isn't exactly a big leap being taking. The new climate policy isn't even trying hard on energy efficiency measures - the most RoI-efficient emission reduction wedge, where McKinseys tells us we can save millions while reducing emissions 20-30%!

The country has plenty of room to move much faster on emission cuts with zip-all impact on the economy.

Essentially the Government is not properly pricing the risk involved in not taking drastic action to reduce emissions. The country needs to be worrying what a 1 metre rise in sea levels, with increased flood surges on top of it, is going to do to our coal export market: look at this map of the Pearl River delta under 1 m. That's a stalled economy. Then think the same across northern China, Wuhan, Calcutta, etc.

It was all looking so sensible for awhile there ... then the Garnaut Report came and, somewhere between finishing off the (excellent) science and diagnosis parts of the report and writing the recommendations, Ross got hit on the head with a mallet and ended up putting in stuff that bore little relation to the nature of the problem he had described. And I don't think saying that "we can't do much because the rest of the world isn't going to" is an acceptable get-out-of-jail card - Australia should be in there leading, not dragging global plans back. (It's been embarrassing being told Australian was a recalcitrant in Poznan, working with Canada, the US and Japan, to hold back decision-making on key clauses ... a bit like the Howard years.)

Still, one ray of light: my mates at Climate Risk have been modelling forward emission impacts, and they think Australia might just be able to make 90% cuts (which will be the target by the end of this game) starting with 15% by 2020. That's good news, although it still doesn't help us get to declining global emissions by 2015. If we don't do that any future cuts look to be a waste of time.

What does the financial crisis mean for responsible investment?

Responsible or sustainable investment is about getting returns over the longer term, about avoiding short-term benefits that sacrifice the medium and long-term.

Most commentators agree that the current crash is rooted in the focus on short-termism over long termism. Of rapidly expanding sub-prime portfolios with, it's now clear, not enough focus on the sustainability of returns; of incentive schemes that demanded sacrificing long term outcomes by maximising quarterly results; of pushing leverage to the max without allowing for inevitable market shocks.

We need incentives, governance and regulation aligned to recover the balance between sustainable investment and the necessary energy of liquid markets.

The crisis has shown that longer term horizons require looking at the ecosystem supporting investments and at ensuring economies will be robust enough to continue to give us returns. We know that improved governance gives, on average 1-2% better returns over the longer term ; we know from the Stern Report that tackling climate change will costs the economy 1-2% of growth versus not tackling it costing us 10% of growth.

The crash is more likely to push back the extreme short-termist virus that has infected society, and shift funds to responsible investment.