Reducing carbon won't stop climate change

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

Hi John,

i agree, i’m also saying we need to get our emissions under control (for reasons of climate change and more), i’m also saying that Bjorn’s thesis is flawed and i like/agree with Sharif Abdullah’s response which is far more succinct than my reasons given.

For the purpose of discussion, i think there needs to be a distinction between 1. bad and managable climate change and 2. catastrophic climate change. I don’t think we can stop the first. Looking around, it’s already happening and on a planetary timescale, i imagine any carbon that we reduce now, won’t have a significant effect for another 50 to 100 years, so we can imagine that what we see today is likely to get worse (i.e. bad and possibly managable climate change is inevitable)

my thoughts are not that Bjorn is right or that we can’t stop catastrophic climate change but that we need to;

1. change the mantra and refrain from letting people believe that we may be able to stop climate change.
2. increase the development of science and infrastructure to deal with climate change.

i think we need to accept climate change is going to happen/is happening and break down the taboos about scientific fixes to reducing warming and it’s impacts.

These thoughts are pretty new to me and they haven’t been easy coming as i have a big vested interest in the “status quo” of carbon reduction, i’ve dedicate my adult live to such things and currently the voluntary group and company that i work at are both dedicated to carbon reduction.

but i do think if we continue to claim that we can stop climate change through carbon reduction we will have a trust issue with the masses in the future. it’s kind of like the biofuels debate, were now people are trying to throw out the baby with the bath water

Shane

John Cossham

CRAGger York

I also feel that climate change is happening and that it is inevitable, bearing in mind the time lag between emissions and effects, and the fact that we are still increasing global carbon and carbon equivalent emissions.

Transition Towns are aiming to build resiliance in the face of climate change and peak oil. You may find a Transition initiative near you: http://www.transitiontowns.org/

Some scientists are suggesting that we have less than 100 months left before we reach some kind of tipping point, or several tipping points, which will irreversably put our climate into a very different way of being, see: http://onehundredmonths.org/

John (participating in ‘York in Transition’)

John Cossham

CRAGger York

Here’s a list of places ‘mulling over’ whether they will join the ‘official’ Transition Initiatives
http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/Mulling
John

Looking at some of the tipping points we have already passed, like Arctic melt, I wonder if there is any going back. If we say that there is still time to avert catastrophe, we motivate with urgency rather than depress people. But with the 100-year-plus residence time of these gases in the atmosphere, I think we are going to see the IPCC worst-case predictions whether we cut back on greenhouse gases or not. I think that the point is if we don’t, it will be much, much worse. I have a funny feeling that many of us in the climate movement kind of know this but that it does not help our cause to say it out loud. Nevertheless, it nags at me and I thought I would say it. The University of Maryland is already developing adaptation plans in partnership with other agencies that would apply to countries worldwide. That said I think we must strive for 300-350ppm. And preserve forests.

Great idea David – and good posts everyone else.

For me, the most galvanising workshop at Climate Camp this year was the presentation “Cllimate Code Red” by the Public Interest Research Centre, which made the distinction between the last IPCC report which was trying to say “climate change really is happening” and was therefore based on very conservative science [in order to reduce the risk of the reality of climate change being disputed], and the need for all policy and action to be based on an understanding of the risks and tipping points.

The Westminster briefing by the Apollo-Gaia project made the crucial point that the logic of the Stern report completely fails to understand the problem. It is not that the sooner we act, the less all the impacts will be, but that there is a point beyond which nothing we do will be able to prevent runaway change, even if an infinite amount of money is spent, and that that point is very near. So here’s to the CRAG-350 petition and all other actions – this issue may be obvious to some of us here, but not necessarily all [I’ve been somewhat shocked to discover recently]...

http://www.apollo-gaia.org/BaliandBeyond.htm

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Apollo-Gaia put it across very well – although I’m unsure there’s the scientific basis to say “Almost all of the systems known to affect climate change are now in a state of net positive (amplifying) feedback”. Certainly it is beginning, though.

I’m currently writing a section on feedbacks in the ocean carbon sink, following on to risk perception and communication of non-linear systems – so this has come at rather an apt time. If anyone has any resources or literature on getting these ideas across, it would be very useful.

It seems so far that people have great difficulty handling complex systems. Sterman (2006) ¹ says:

“where the world is dynamic, evolving, interconnected, we tend to make decisions using mental models that are static, narrow and reductionist. Among the elements of dynamic complexity people find most problematic are feedback, time delays, and stocks and flows”

In a second paper ², testing MIT graduates’ understanding of climate dynamics, he says:

“most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs – analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow – support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter”

“most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations can be deferred until there is greater evidence … such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident”

So, it may not be the cost, or an underestimation or undervaluing of the risks, that are causing complacency – but instead a belief that we can turn up or down the global thermostat at will (which the term “global warming” greatly contributed to, imo). How can we go about changing those attitudes?

He goes on to say (in the first paper) we need to teach systems thinking and give hands-on experience of handling systems that behave unpredictably, using virtual worlds (ie. models). Clearly that’s too much in the time frames we have available, where even distinguishing a trend from background variability has provoked such misunderstanding and controversy (or, rather, used to muddy the waters).

On the other hand don’t most people understand how to fill a bathtub? How otherwise can we paint a readily-understood picture of the non-linear behaviour of the climate system?

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

Let’s save our pessimism for better times but let’s not deny this: the next 100 months will fly by, and in all likelihood governments will continue to fail us through inaction, corporations will continue to poison us for profit and we ourselves will refrain from rioting for austerity. Eventually, the famous “window” will close and suddenly it will become difficult to respond to the folk who say “what is the point? let’s party!” But I hope I will be with the hopeless optimists who say “pass me the bucket and mop.”

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

I think one of the reasons that climate change’s inevitability isn’t discussed too often is because it feeds in action/pessimism which is probably the largest barrier to climb, i mean we’ve had decades of inaction, who would want to trigger more. but now that it is being discussed, we can see only motivation for action; i.e. reducing to 2 tonnes, to 350ppms and participating in Transition Towns etc they’re double or triple wins;

- reducing the chance of runaway climate change and – adapting our systems and infrastructure in the face of changing climate and possibly a third – subjectively but in many peoples opinion increasing quality of life.

what i was hoping to gauge though, is people’s opinions to goeengeneering?? i’m sure most would agree that adaptation in the form of flood defences etc is logical but is goeengeneering part of the mix? i like John Ackers response.
I’ve always banished such discussions about using science to reduce the temperature of the planet because surely this will stop people from reducing co2 (i.e more inaction), but i’m now starting to think that this is not the smartest perspective.

Shane

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

i just spotted this thread on goeengeneering http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008364.html

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

The feasible geo-engineering options seem to me (I know very little in this area) a temporary band-aid only, buying time to implement carbon reduction strategies. They nearly always have unintended consequences and do not address the root cause of the problem. However, if we find ourselves up against a global tipping point, we should certainly use the means at our disposal to stave it off, if only temporarily.

Key point, imo, is we are still going to have to do carbon reduction, and we are still going to have to do adaptation to linear impacts of warming (ie. 1-2oC) as well as any possible geoengineering. The danger of using geoengineering as a serious policy option is that it will be used as an excuse for carrying on with BAU carbon emissions, reducing the three necessary policies to one – and we’ll still end up in the same mess (along with the “unintended consequences” of the geoengineering) just several decades on. There is an interesting discussion on all this on Real Climate

Shane, when you say “climate change’s inevitability” it implies that there is only one possible outcome, and that’s where we’re at. We need to prepare for the linear change we are committed to, sure. But the magnitude of non-linear change seems impossible to prepare for – our only option is mitigation (whether of the carbon reduction or geoengineering variety). Having watched and read about the Brave New Ocean (highly recommended, here’s the recent paper) – the force of what will happen is starting (as Lovelock has said) to move from my head to my gut. It’s not worth contemplating going there. As for cleaning up the mess afterwards, I don’t think it’s possible. Once it’s flipped, it’s flipped. There’s no going back.

The main problem remains communicating this to the public without seeming alarmist! We humans often seem to land ourselves in trouble when we enter new, unfamiliar territory (see Jared Diamond’s Collapse lecture) – and this is totally new to us. Most cannot identify with this scale of change, or even this type of behaviour, in their ordinary lives. Scientists are mostly distant and remote. Their innovations are accepted but once their advice causes interference with “normal” life, people don’t want to know. Without public support, I can’t see politicians taking the necessary action to regulate fossil fuel extraction at source. Yet, too, I can’t see anyone choosing to live in the type of world that would result from non-linear climate change. That presents some kind of hope, if it was accepted. But, unlike the nuclear problem, no-one has to “push the trigger”. Denial is sufficient to land us all in deep trouble.

So my reading of strategy is: block coal; allow oil prices (along with our efforts) to gradually decarbonise society; adapt to committed climate change; prepare possible geo-engineering countermeasures; and hope that a new progressive US will precipitate a global deal capping overall emissions in 2009. Do all these things together and we have a chance of avoiding the worst outcomes.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I realise now that the “riot for austerity” sounded good but was so much bunkum and a total dead end. People will put up with austerity, but to reach an aspirational goal. They will never riot for austerity itself, nor should they. Why austerity for its own sake?

Riot for prosperity! We want to continue enjoying fish from the sea. We want to hand on our beautiful and historic coastline to the next generation … We want our lives to remain rich and varied. Why is rationing justified for you? What is it we all love about the world we want to hand on?

It concerns me our cultural live seems blind to articulating either our fears or hopes for the future. Where are the songs and poems, where is the art? IPCC reports are just so much paper to most. Who is going to bring this alive? We have no Dylan (although Mark Edwards has brilliantly reinterpreted Hard Rain in photographs). Why the silence? Perhaps we should explore and document our personal motivations, inspirations and visions, on this site.

I’ve created a separate thread on climate art: climate art: hopes and fears – art comments there please! david.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

Nice David!!! the first post is from the head the second from the heart.

You said;

Why is rationing justified for you?

this would be a good thread! i’d have to say my motivations a far closer to voluntary simplicity, i.e. i really do enjoy the free things in life, those intangible moments. i find the very notion of rationing counter to my actual (often selfish) motivations of enriching my life experience.

You also said;

it concerns me our cultural live seems blind to articulating either our fears or hopes for the future. Where are the songs and poems, where is the art? IPCC reports are just so much paper to most.

There is most definitely a wealth of expression of this kind but it is largely in the underground movements still. In 2003 i co-founded a London based organisation called http://creativeforum.org/ which was dedicated to providing a platform for people to use different art forms to express their position and visions etc. I think pop culture is too commercial nowerdays to allow money making artists to become too heavily involved.

Just a quick point of clarity on geo-engineering; i’m not necessarily in support of it, although my previous position of being totally against it, is now in flux. So i’ll continue playing the advocate.

Geo-engineering sounds pretty risky i agree but is mass planting of trees for the purposes of co2 sequestration, simply a more acceptable face of geo-engineering? where do we draw the line? do we just meddle with the bits that aren’t risky? i’m not sure that approach will bring much in the way of innovation.

And i think the underline discussion in this thread is how do we juggle keeping people ‘positively’ engaged in combating non linear climate change? with the disheartening truth of accepting the inevitability of low level climate change and the mental distractions of such things as geo-engineering?

i think open honesty is a good start. keeping the message true and clear.

Shane

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Geo-engineering sounds pretty risky i agree but is mass planting of trees for the purposes of co2 sequestration, simply a more acceptable face of geo-engineering? where do we draw the line? do we just meddle with the bits that aren’t risky?

I guess you have to balance the risks of geoengineering against the risks of not doing it, in which case most options remain on the table. There’s a distinction between the carbon sequestration options, and those that try to alter other parts of the radiation balance (like space mirrors, aerosols etc.). The former are generally safer as they’re tackling the root cause and not meddling with other aspects of the climate system. I like the idea of pumping into the deep ocean, as its a stable reservoir and we would only be speeding up a process that would happen naturally anyway.

Trees, yes, I’d say they are! Acceptable, yes, but pretty risky because they could go up in flames with a bit of warming and drying. You’re taking carbon from a geological reservoir and dumping it in a biological one. It’s not the same thing!

how do we juggle keeping people ‘positively’ engaged in combating non linear climate change? with the disheartening truth of accepting the inevitability of low level climate change and the mental distractions of such things as geo-engineering?

This is very tough, the toughest thing of all. Honesty, yes – but how to convey that whilst engaging and motivating? I find it very difficult to handle myself (just try watching that “Brave New Ocean” presentation). Too much truth is difficult to handle, especially when there are no clear avenues for action. But avoiding the truth breeds complacency. I think stepping back, looking at it objectively, and coming up with a clear strategy helps. Then building up our self-belief and presenting clear actions to follow on.

I’ve been watching Barack Obama’s speeches, recently, and they’re very good at reaching peoples’ inner sense of optimism and hope for the future (“real change always comes from the grass roots”). With such a bleak picture, it’s tough to do, but that’s what we need. Head, yes, but much more heart and hands here, I think.

shane

website team CRAGger Bedford

i thought i’d summarise a core perspective that has come from this thread:

Reducing carbon won’t stop climate change, it’s here, it’s happening. However, reducing carbon is:

1. the safest strategy for stopping “runaway” climate change.
2. our current chance of addressing the route causes of climate change.
3. a core driver for adaptation; as we reduce energy consumption and relocalise our material consumption we/and our systems will be better placed in the face of the changing climate.
4. a kind of currency for so many non climate related environmental and social benefits.

The notion of reducing carbon to stop climate change is, therefore, too simplistic and scientifically wrong. What is clear, however, is that the motivations for reducing carbon are unwavering in the face of complexity and contradiction and that the need to reduce carbon, on a individual, community and national level, is an essential focus of practical action.

Perhaps on a more theoretical level (at this point in time), we need to ask ourselves what if runaway climate change has already been set in motion, say the tipping point was in the 70’s before we’d even fully identified the changes in the climate. By reducing carbon we will still gain the benefits 2 to 4 but the logical response is to weigh up the risks of goe-engineering (i.e. some kind of scientific response to control the climate) against the risks of not goe-engineering. In fact we’re already doing it with things like mass tree planting for carbon sequestration. However, there’s a whole bunch of planetary level climate controls that are very little understood….
Shane

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Yes, Shane, I think that’s a good representation of the discussion so far. The key question, as we become committed to moderate and even runaway climate change, is there any point in working on carbon reduction?

I was veering towards “no”, all efforts should switch towards adaptation. However, I think that’s still thinking too much inside the climate “box”, and ignoring what’s been called the “triple crunch” of economy, climate and peak oil. Carbon-based energy is increasingly expensive, so making personal reductions will save you money and increase your quality of life in other ways (for many, these days, more groceries). It also will bring lessons and tools for living within oil constraints, and the wider resource constraints we’ll probably have to deal with in the future.

In some ways, this change of emphasis means that personal carbon reduction becomes more relevant to the individual, and a small contribution to a vast global problem. So if we can effectively link these three areas (all too often separated in public discourse), it could become more popular, not less. Another implication of this shift is that perhaps we should shift our audience away from the middle-class greenies and towards those on low incomes who really need the help, knowledge & skills most – allowing them to reduce their dependence on carbon-based energy and avoid the “heat or eat” dilemma.