Tag: Climate Change

The Economics and Science behind Climate Change Mitigation

Posted on by Carlos Enrique

The article “We don’t, and can’t, know how much it will cost to tackle climate change” is lengthy but quite worth the read. At the heart of the matter is that economic models are pretty good for short-term forecasts for awful for long-term forecasts, so we should base our response on the scientific facts on the ground.

I agree! I agree that long-term economic forecasts are useless, especially over such long time frames. I also agree that decisions should be made on the sound science being done now that indicates incredible damage is being done to the ecosystems we depend on for our way of life.

Unfortunately, that’s not how things work. People make decisions based on events and situations that immediately impact their livelihood and lifestyle. To wit, there’s been a massive dying in the world’s animal population, so much so that it’s being called the 6th Extinction. Entire ecosystems are vanishing, and with them a myriad of discoveries that could be applied towards medicine and technology. We have not noticed this because of several factors.

1) Humans have been moving in ever greater numbers towards urban areas. As of 2014, fully 54 of people live in urban areas. This requires massive amounts of construction and a concentration of people such that a disconnect from the natural world is practically inevitable.

2) The amount of people required to procure food for the rest of us is incredible small. Only 2% of the American population is directly involved in agriculture.

What does this mean? It means that it is difficult for the average person to understand, in a very real and tangible sense, the extent of the damage being done to the ecosystems they unknowingly depend on. Farmers struggle with drought-like conditions, and fishermen have to go farther ashore for smaller catches with weaker fish. The average person, however, sees only a nominal increase in price in the aisles of their local supermarket.

And so, there has been limited public reaction to climate change because it is so far a largely abstract, largely imperceptible phenomenon in people’s lives. When it is obvious to all, it’ll be far too late to do anything about it.

This is why I disagree with the author of this piece. Should we make our decisions on sound scientific research and economic arguments based on weak models? Absolutely. But if we want actual decisions to be made, we’ll need to win hearts, not minds.

Progress in Climate Negotiations, But The Damage is Done

Posted on by Carlos Enrique
A child walking near her home with a coal-fired power plant in the background in Beijing, China. Credit Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

The recent agreement between China and the United States removes a large stumbling block for a more widespread climate change treaty. Without the two largest polluters, any other agreement was bound to have a limited effect, no matter how stringent the requirements or severe the cuts in emissions. Now that both China and the United States have agreed bilaterally to tackle the issue, it eases the process going forward.

Unfortunately, significant damage is done already done, and the best we can hope with existing technology is mitigation and adaptation to damage. The only way to reverse some of the damage is to actively remove more carbon from the atmosphere then we emit. This is a monumental task, and technology to do this is at its most nascent stages.

—

Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate Talks

“I was encouraged by the U.S.-China agreement,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of scientists that produces regular reports on the state of climate science. But he expressed doubts that the threshold rise in global temperature could be prevented.

“What’s already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,” Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields.

Still, absent a deal, “Things could get a lot worse,” Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, the aggregate cost “to the global economy — rich countries as well as poor countries — rises rapidly.”

Climate Change: Environmental Risk, Security Risk

Posted on by Carlos Enrique
The Department of Defense has a plan for adapting to climate change. But will they be allowed to? Credit: Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DoD) has issued a report detailing how it plans to adapt to climate change. Beyond impacting the logistics of moving military supplies and personnel around the world, the DoD expects that climate change will be an immediate threat to national security interests, causing “increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages.” (Davenport, 2014)

It is very telling when a reserved institution such as the DoD acknowledges the impact of climate change and is actively working to integrate the effects of climate change into its operations. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to sway the hearts and minds of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. The DoD’s opinions and decisions have minimal impact on elections, and there are considerable local and national interests that are invested in ignoring climate change.

There is one very bright spot, however. The DoD invests a considerable amount of money in the development and deployment of new technology, and so is a major driver of technological development in the United States. If it decides that alternative energy technologies are necessary to adapt to climate change, we can expect to see a significant boost for the alternative energy industry. This is more likely that it seems; transporting heavy liquid fuels around the world is both expensive and dangerous. There have been instances where American fuel trucks traveling through Pakistan were blocked by military leaders due to shifting sentiments between Pakistan and the United States.

Additionally, it is very telling that when removed from an elected position, even staunch Republicans like Hagel (at the time, Secretary of Defense) assert the importance of addressing climate change. Note that this is a particularly huge change in the case of Hagel, considering he was one of two Senators to block the United States from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

—

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change 

The report is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the national security risks of climate change. But the Pentagon’s characterization of it as a present-day threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military, which has in the past focused on climate change as a future risk.

Before, the Pentagon’s response to climate change focused chiefly on preparing military installations to adapt to its effects, like protecting coastal naval bases from rising sea levels. The new report, however, calls on the military to incorporate climate change into broader strategic thinking about high-risk regions — for example, the ways in which drought and food shortages might set off political unrest in the Middle East and Africa.