Global Climate Change Science News

[Brian Peacock]

Nah. I don't "brush it off as inconsequential", because my focus isn't an abstract claim that humanity can or will perpetually maintain a viable breeding population on a warming planet. I use it deliberately in climate and sustainability communication to convey the unprecedented seriousness of an issue that defines our age, the Anthropocene, and that will undoubtedly impact, and is impacting every member of our species alive today - and down the generations to follow.

Perhaps you feel that the existence of you and yours isn't really threatened by climate change - and perhaps you're right and it isn't and won't be. That just means you're one of the lucky ones. Of the estimated three billion people who are currently at high or extreme risk of drought c.50% live in Africa and c.40% in Asia. They're not so lucky, eh?

When the scope of one's concerns is narrowed to focus on the lives of real people, their vulnerabilities and risks, it is not unreasonable to say that global heating presents an existential threat to them, their cultures, and their ways of living. When one considers the interconnectedness and interdependence of our ecologies and societies it is not unreasonable to say that threats to the existence of others is a threat to our own existence as well.

[rainbow]

Perhaps you feel that the existence of you and yours isn't really threatened by climate change - and perhaps you're right and it isn't and won't be. That just means you're one of the lucky ones. Of the estimated three billion people who are currently at high or extreme risk of drought c.50% live in Africa and c.40% in Asia. They're not so lucky, eh?

You are wrong. Climate change will affect Europe, North America, and the UK in particular.

Increasing temperatures and drought are already desiccating Temperate Forests, causing fires. Reservoirs are low in dry periods and floods in between.

On average there is no problem

[macdoc]

No one said climate change is not a serious problem and risk....it's just not an existential risk for humanity the way Putin or a big asteroid is.
It's why the climate scientists don't use the term.

Overstating does not convince anyone.
We are pretty much past mitigation and have to learn to cope with a warming world and work on actively drawing down CO2....as Tillerson the guy from Exxon stated...it is an engineering problem.
We are doing serious damage to the biome ( not just due to AGW ) - one of the really serious risks is to the pollinators....already a work in progress

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps you feel that the existence of you and yours isn't really threatened by climate change - and perhaps you're right and it isn't and won't be. That just means you're one of the lucky ones. Of the estimated three billion people who are currently at high or extreme risk of drought c.50% live in Africa and c.40% in Asia. They're not so lucky, eh?

You are wrong. Climate change will affect Europe, North America, and the UK in particular.

Increasing temperatures and drought are already desiccating Temperate Forests, causing fires. Reservoirs are low in dry periods and floods in between.

On average there is no problem

I'm not saying that climate change is only a problem for poor brown people far away. Far from it. macdoc and I were talking about risk and I brought up figures in a UNICEF report (PDF) which talked about those deemed at high or extreme risk of drought. That report was published 8 years ago - but the point still stands. My hope is to challenge those who believe that the trappings of 'civilisation' will somehow immunise them against the risks associated with global heating or mitigate their vulnerabilities. In talking about vulnerabilities and risk I also aim to highlight the necessary interconnectedness and interdependence of seemingly disparate peoples and places.

I also want to reframe the idea of existential threat, because if one believes that the continuation of the human species is the most important factor or metric in determining vulnerability and risk, AND that climate change presents no long-term threat in those terms, then arguments for inaction &/or even greater emissions (arguments in favour of letting Nature 'take its course' for example) begin to appear logically (if not ethically) appealing. Apparently we mustn't use the term 'existential threat' today even if human activity boils away most of the biosphere and humanity along with it tomorrow - because as long as a breeding population survives then the threat is not really existential in some 'true' or 'proper' or 'meaningful' sense. I think it's fair to say that those who forward these kinds of arguments generally assume that they &/or their descendents are bound to be counted among the survivors. Their hubris blinds them to the scope and scale of the suffering they're willing to ignore or excuse simply by placing the survival of some humans above the actual vulnerabilities, risks, threats, harms, suffering, and deaths of a much greater number of people.

[Brian Peacock]

No one said climate change is not a serious problem and risk....it's just not an existential risk for humanity the way Putin or a big asteroid is.
It's why the climate scientists don't use the term.

Overstating does not convince anyone.
We are pretty much past mitigation and have to learn to cope with a warming world and work on actively drawing down CO2....as Tillerson the guy from Exxon stated...it is an engineering problem.
We are doing serious damage to the biome ( not just due to AGW ) - one of the really serious risks is to the pollinators....already a work in progress

Framing things like climate resilience, vulnerability and risk as an engineering problem is one approach for sure - I've also heard people talking about it as an infrastructure problem. I'd invite you to examine what this kind of framing takes for granted and challenge you to think about where and how it might break down.

[rainbow]

I also want to reframe the idea of existential threat, because if one believes that the continuation of the human species is the most important factor or metric in determining vulnerability and risk, AND that climate change presents no long-term threat in those terms, then arguments for inaction &/or even greater emissions (arguments in favour of letting Nature 'take its course' for example) begin to appear logically (if not ethically) appealing. Apparently we mustn't use the term 'existential threat' today even if human activity boils away most of the biosphere and humanity along with it tomorrow - because as long as a breeding population survives then the threat is not really existential in some 'true' or 'proper' or 'meaningful' sense. I think it's fair to say that those who forward these kinds of arguments generally assume that they &/or their descendents are bound to be counted among the survivors. Their hubris blinds them to the scope and scale of the suffering they're willing to ignore or excuse simply by placing the survival of some humans above the actual vulnerabilities, risks, threats, harms, suffering, and deaths of a much greater number of people.

Point taken.

[JimC]

Climate change is a problem that requires intertwined engineering, political, social and economic responses...

[macdoc]

Slowing, stopping, and in theory reversing AGW is an engineering problem which is currently in progress

Dealing with the unfolding consequences of AGW and bringing global resources to bear requires

political, social and economic responses...

which is

[JimC]

Without political will, there will be insufficient resources devoted to engineering solutions. Without widespread support by society, the political will does not exist...

[macdoc]

I dunno - China would argue otherwise.

[JimC]

For China, political will is an exercise of the authoritarian power inherent in a one party state. In the case of moving towards renewables, it seems to work well for them, at least for the moment. But political will in western democracies must spring from an informed and concerned public (which we are at least starting to have)

[macdoc]

JohnQ Public is far ahead of the paid off elected law lawmakers.
The public will IS there....the execution is corrupt.

[Brian Peacock]

JohnQ Public is far ahead of the paid off elected law lawmakers.
The public will IS there....the execution is corrupt.

Which is a good argument for mass social action for positive political change towards more sustainable, green, and circular economic models. You've just reasoned yourself into XR. PM Jim or I and we can put you in touch with your local group.

[Brian Peacock]

I dunno - China would argue otherwise.

What degree of authoritarianism do you think might be needed?

Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Joel Millward-Hopkins, June 2023 theconversation.com

The wildfires raging across Canada’s south-eastern province of Quebec are unprecedented. A warm, dry spring allowed the tinder to accumulate and lightning storms in early June lit the match, dramatically escalating 2023’s fire season.

As the smoke spread south it spawned apocalyptic skies over the north-eastern US and placed over 100 million people under air quality alerts, putting New York City in the top spot of a global league table of cities with the most polluted air.

Canadian scientists warned about the role of climate change in fuelling wildfires in 2019. Climate change may not cause fires, but it does significantly increase the likelihood they will occur and, globally, wildfires are expected to increase by 50% this century.

One might hope, at least, that as these increasingly acute effects of climate change are felt by wealthy, high-emitting countries, people will be persuaded to act with the conviction necessary to avert the climate crisis, which threatens the lives of millions and the livelihoods of billions.

However, as I argued in a recent paper*, the hope underlying this assumption could be misplaced. As the effects of warming are felt more substantially, we may instead vote into power people committed to making the problem worse.

This is because of an overlap between the broader effects of climate change and factors that have aided the rise of nationalist, authoritarian, populist leaders across Europe, the US, Brazil and elsewhere, particularly in recent years.

The broader consequences of climate change

Climate change is widely expected to bring a range of impacts, from the increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods, heatwaves and crop failures to the wider spread of tropical diseases. But it will also bring less obvious problems related to inequality, migration and conflict. Together, these could create a world of deepening inequality and instability, rapid change and perceived threats – an environment in which authoritarian leaders tend to thrive.

Climate change threatens to widen inequalities within and between countries. In fact, evidence suggests that it already has. This is because poorer people are typically more exposed to the effects of climate change and more vulnerable to harm as a result of them.

Poorer countries, and poorer people in wealthy countries, face a vicious cycle in which their economic situation leaves them stuck in the areas most exposed to extreme weather and prevents them from recovering. In contrast, the rich can smokeproof their homes, hire private firefighters, run their air conditioning without worrying about the bill – or simply buy a house elsewhere.

Climate change is also expected to increase migration. Estimates of the number of people expected to migrate in response to climate change are highly uncertain, due to compounding social and political factors, and discussion in the media has sometimes tended towards alarmism and myth.

Although most movement is also expected to occur within countries, there is likely to be a significant increase in people moving from poor to rich countries. By mid-century, a significant number of people in places such as South Asia may be exposed to heat waves that humans simply cannot survive, making migration the only possible escape.

Finally, climate change is expected to heighten the risk of conflict and violence. Wars may break out over basic resources such as water. At a smaller scale, violence and crime could increase. Research has shown that even tweets are more hateful in the heat.

Authoritarian populism

Right-wing politicians have successfully exploited the narrative around these issues which climate change is inflaming: immigration, economic inequality and global insecurity. Their promises to reverse falling living standards for a selection of the public, relieve stress on (underfunded) public services and protect the nation from external threats invariably involve appeals to close borders and scapegoat migrants.

These leaders are also anti-environmentalist. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Jair Bolsanaro have fetishised traditional industries such as coal mining, abandoned global challenges in favour of national pursuits and are openly sceptical of, or outright deny, human influence on the climate.

The absence of a global consciousness and a willingness to cooperate, which is inherent to this politics, would make maintaining a safe climate almost impossible.

The freedom that’s left

This is a bleak vision. But it’s offered as a warning, not a forecast, and there are good reasons not to be pessimistic.

One reason is that there is some evidence that experiencing extreme weather increases support for climate action. So the effects of climate change may not just push people away from an appropriate political response.

More importantly, climate change doesn’t directly cause things like migration, conflict and violence. Instead, it makes them more likely through interactions with existing social and political issues such as government repression, high unemployment or religious tensions. This is both good news and bad news.

First, the bad news. Researchers suggest that poverty and inequality are more important drivers of conflict and migration than climate change. But these are themselves amplified by climate change. So climate change may play a role in conflict and migration that is not yet understood.

The good news is that these complex interactions between environmental conditions and our political and social life show us that the future is, to a large degree, still ours to decide. In the anthropocene humans have become an agent of planetary change – we can determine the future of the environment. But the environment will not determine ours. Nonetheless, understanding how climate change may indirectly influence politics is crucial to finding a politics appropriate to the challenges we face.

*

Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
Millward-Hopkins, Dec 2022 www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability

Abstract
Non-technical summary

A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.

Technical summary

There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.

Social media summary

As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.

... (open access)

[macdoc]

War time - Manhattan Project level without the secrecy and nations cant expect anything of others...they all have to do what they can without pointing fingers.
Democracy not well suited.