Week 4 Memos: Environmental Devastation

[deholz]

Reply with your memo as a Comment. The memo should be responsive to this week's readings from David Archer, with 300–500 words + 1 visual element (e.g., figure, image, hand-drawn picture, art, etc. that complements or is suggestive of your argument). The memo should be tagged with one or more of the following:

origin: How did we get here? Reflection on the historical, technological, political and other origins of this existential crisis that help us better understand and place it in context.

risk: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the risk associated with this challenge. This risk analysis could be locally in a particular place and time, or globally over a much longer period, in isolation or in relation to other existential challenges (e.g., the environmental devastation that follows nuclear fallout).

policy: What individual and collective actions or policies could be (or have been) undertaken to avert the existential risk associated with this challenge? These could include a brief examination and evaluation of a historical context and policy (e.g., quarantining and plague), a comparison of existing policy options (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, ethical contrast), or design of a novel policy solution.

solutions: Suggestions of what (else) might be done. These could be personal, technical, social, artistic, or anything that might reduce existential risk.

framing: What are competing framings of this existential challenge? Are there any novel framings that could allow us to think about the challenge differently; that would make it more salient? How do different ethical, religious, political and other positions frame this challenge and its consequences (e.g., “End of the Times”).

salience: Why is it hard to think and talk about or ultimately mobilize around this existential challenge? Are there agencies in society with an interest in downplaying the risks associated with this challenge? Are there ideologies that are inconsistent with this risk that make it hard to recognize or feel responsible for?

nuclear/#climate/#bio/#cyber/#emerging: Partial list of topics of focus.

For one session over the course of the quarter, you may post a memo that reflects on a film or fictional rendering of an existential challenge. This should be tagged with:

movie / #novel: How did the film/novel represent the existential challenge? What did this highlight; what did it ignore? How realistic was the risk? How salient (or insignificant) did it make the challenge for you? For others (e.g., from reviews, box office / retail receipts, or contemporary commentary)?

[timok15]

climate, #framing, #salience, #policy, #solutions, #risk

The northward shift of the human climatic niche does certainly signal the possibility of major human migration across the planet. Additionally, it is often this migration that dominates the conversation. However, I consider destabilized agriculture to be the most dire result of this shifting niche. Our crops have been bred for a small variability in temperature during the growing season. Setting aside the narrow tolerable temperatures for humanity’s crops, when they do grow, important cereals, like wheat, corn, sorghum, grow far less productively under high temperature conditions. The result of such crop failure and reduced yield will mean famine or increased food prices depending on the wealth and development of a county.

To my mind, food detachment and vested farming interests explain the smaller discussions surrounding this problem. The first impediment to awareness of the food system threat arises from how the world food system now functions. The consumer is generally and usually detached from the growers of the food they eat. While the consumer perhaps understands the process of bringing food to market intellectually and abstractly, at the end of the day, they only really interact with the end stage food product at the store or the market. They care far more about hiked food prices for any reason whatsoever, than about some scandal involving tractor maintenance for instance. Secondly, in places like the United States, farmers receive a variety of subsidies. To ensure food climate resilience will require convincing policymakers to implement policies (like cutting or requalifying subsides) that work to pick up and move the US food production region northwards. However, such a plan, to be successful, would necessarily disadvantage southerly farmers to northerly ones and thus would probably experience serious pushback from a coalition of more southerly farmers.

In other words, to securitize food in the climate crisis is to be faced with the modified trolley problem. In the standard trolley problem, there is a trolley racing down the tracks with no brakes and if you do nothing it will hit and kill five people because they cannot get off the tracks in time. However, there is an option for you to use the rail switch up ahead, so that the trolley will only kill one person who cannot escape either. In the modified problem, the one person whose life can be exchanged for the life of the other five is instead someone on the trolley that you yourself must push off in front of the trolley to stop it. If no action is taken to prepare for the climate destabilization of the food system, then a large number of people (the five in the problem) will find themselves in a bad way (probably starving to some degree). Meanwhile, the farmers of the current status quo do not like the idea of being thrown off the front of the trolley and argue it is unjust.

Shift of the Human Climate Niche from "Future of the human climate niche" from Xu et al.

[imilbauer]

climate #policy #solutions

In the Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report and the “Future of the human climate niche report,” I am struck by how the emphasis on policy issues doesn’t entail a robust discussion of related questions of politics, even if the reports provide useful policy ideas. “The Future of the human climate niche” report emphasizes that climate change is likely to entail broad displacement of peoples from regions that become uninhabitable to places that are more habitable. The report argues that currently populations are fairly appropriately distributed across regions that can sustain those populations. According the the authors, that equilibrium is likely to change due to climate change. Although the report raises the issue of displacement, it does not engage in discussing the mechanics of how displacement will be addressed. The past decade has seen a rise in nativism in various countries that has lead countries to turn away migrants. In addition, climate migrants will require resources to house and support that may strain many countries’ social safety sets if adequate provisions are not made for migrants. An open question regarding climate change migration is whether popular will be mobilized to support these migrants and whether resources will be mobilized to provide for these migrants. In one scenario, climate change migration will further fuel nativist politics and political tensions between the Global North and Global South. Alternatively, a humanitarian movement could recognize how welcoming climate migrants may not only be morally salient but may also replenish the populations of countries that are experiencing rapid aging. Once migrants are accepted, the question of how to successfully integrate these migrants into their host societies will become important.

The Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report includes a section on “Governance and Policies” however this section is lacking in a great deal of detail or recognition of the complex realities underlying climate governance. Section C.6.1 reads “effective local, municipal, national, and subnational institutions build consensus for climate action among diverse interests.” (32) One issue underlying this statement is that assumes climate politics occurs in countries that are democratic or at least have civil societies. It is also assumed that governments, and subnational units of government, will unanimously wish to build political consensus around climate action. Many countries that contribute the most to global emissions are not democracies. Moreover, many democracies have political subunits that have different attitudes toward climate change that the rest of the country. An additional challenge in democracies is that political leadership may alternate between leaders that wish to act on climate change and those that wish to due nothing. Another challenge is what analyst Nils Gilman calls the rise of "Avocado Politics." He points to the German far-right which has recognized climate change but called for "a mandatory 'one child' policy for countries in the Global South that wish to receive development assistance" in response to climate change. The political challenge of climate change isn't just denialism but that it may generate new forms of authoritarian politics.

The complex reality of climate politics evidences that even smart policy ideas may not get traction depending on the political climate. One source of optimism is grassroots efforts, or efforts on the local level, to mobilize to address climate change. The work of cities around the world to reduce emissions, even when their national governments are not doing so, is cause for hope. Ideally, considering political challenges would not diminish a rich understanding of technical details but rather could enhance it. Still, NGOs may wish to avoid engaging in political questions in their reports to avoid potentially fracturing fragile coalitions. But maybe, I am getting ahead of myself for this week's lecture. If climate action is an onion of scientific, social, and political understanding, maybe, the first layer to unravel is scientific education before the other layers can be fully considered.

Photo:

C40 member cities, a coalition of cities committed to climate action, are responsible for 20% of the global economy.

[lubaishao]

climate #risk #policy

Human is currently not ready for the potential problems caused by climate change, leaving room for many countries to “buck-passing” for issues like climate migration in the future. Climate refugee is a concept that lack official legal status and corresponding normative protection. Most regulations and conventions regarding migration or refugees did not consider the situation of climate crisis, they were established for wars and political persecution. Current UN’s Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted since 1967, but the term “refugee” only refers those who are forced to leave their own country for political or economic persecutions, not for those who are forced to leave their own country because of climate change.  Therefore, climate refugees face difficulties in giving a legitimate reason to move to other countries, and they don’t have legal status and rights. Due to the absence of such political conditions, some countries do not accept climate refugees.   Currently, certain countries have taken measures to protect the rights of climate refugees. Sweden and Italy have legislated to explicitly include environmental disasters as a reason for international humanitarian protection. In Sweden and Italy, the "serious natural disasters" is one of the situations qualifying for humanitarian protection. The New Zealand government is considering the establishment of a new visa category (the climate refugee visa) to help people from Pacific islands who are affected by climate change.   However, currently, the number of climate refugees is relatively small. The World Bank estimates that climate change will dislocate 216 million people by 2050. (From the World Bank: By 2050, domestic climate migration is likely to reach 86 million in sub-Saharan Africa, 49 million in East Asia-Pacific, 40 million in South Asia, 19 million in North Africa, 17 million in Latin America, and 5 million in Eastern Europe-Central Asia.) At that time, more countries may choose to reject migration rather than embrace it.

Droughts, like floods, a reason of climate migration

[miansimmons]

climate #solutions #salience

According to the 2023 IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report, the top 10% of households are responsible for almost half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the top 1% of households are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 50% combined. Given the strong correlation between wealth and environmental degradation, I argue that there is an urgent need for climate solutions targeting the polluting elite. By decreasing carbon consumption among the wealthy, the overall rate of emissions would shift markedly and there would be more room in the carbon budget for low-emitting countries to utilize modern energy sources.

It would take around 1,500 years for an individual "in the bottom 99% to produce as much carbon as the richest billionaires in a year" (Oxfam Report 2023). To magnify the issue's severity, let us consider Taylor Swift - a recent addition to the billionaire's club - as a case study. Taylor is one of many billionaires using her private jet in excess. For example, within the span of just three days between her Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro performances, she flew to New York to see her boyfriend, racking up 3.1 metric tons of CO2. She has emitted more CO2 this year than an average American does within 550 years or 1,200 times more emissions than the average person (Business Insider). These numbers should raise alarm bells. However, over 50% of U.S. residents consider themselves to be avid Taylor Swift fans, and many view their "Swiftie" status as an essential part of their identity (Forbes). These fans have a vested interest in downplaying her transgressions, citing her purchase of carbon credits and the economic growth resulting from her Era's Tour as excuses.

In order to mitigate the negative impact of billionaires like Taylor, I propose an enormously high carbon tax on purchases made by people earning over a certain threshold (e.g. private jet tax, frequent flier tax, yacht tax, Rolex tax, etc.). These taxes would not substantially impact their quality of life in any way, and different tax schemes may be considered for personal versus business use. If they take issue with these mandates, they can always fly first class instead (though I suspect they will not). I also suggest the creation of a regulatory scheme where these high earners are required to have their emissions tracked and made publicly available. In other words, bad actors should be doxed and held accountable. Though there may be difficulties surrounding privacy, this is the type of direction we should take, short of banning private jet use entirely. Carbon credits are not enough to keep billionaires in check, as they often help entities meet emissions requirements without reducing their carbon footprint (and the supply of carbon credits is not decreasing to force compliance).

When climate change catches up to us, billionaires will shield themselves from the worst effects that they are disproportionately responsible for causing. Behavior and lifestyle changes supported by intense carbon policies can help close the large emissions gap created by the wealthy.

Source: World Inequality Lab

[M-Hallikainen]

climate #policy #framing #solutions

It’s hard to ever describe the IPCC reports as hopeful. In the face of such dire global change and systemic inaction, descriptions like “There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all” (p.24) really encapsulate the escalating tone year over year. That said, when reading through the 2023 reports I was struck by the focus on co-benefits and the optimism found within said discussions. A particular difficulty in the rhetorical war of motivational climate action has been the sustained idea that climate action is inherently limiting; that it is always a trade off between the costs of climate action and the greater long term costs of climate inaction. I think this is particularly apparent in a lot of contemporary conservative rhetoric around climate change (Ex. “They are trying to take away your red meat/diesel truck/free market, etc.”), but it's also present in a lot of the more doomer progressive climate rhetoric (Ex. “we will never see proper climate action because climate inaction is too lucrative”). However, the IPCC’s focus on the co-benefits of climate action helps highlight that sustainable development does not resign us to unconditional sacrifice, but instead presents major opportunities for social, political, and economic development. As has been touched upon in many of our readings and lectures, renewable energies are now generally more cost effective that fossil fuels, and as the IPCC notes, transitioning to a diverse sustainable energy grid not only serves to mitigate climate change but also to build a more reliable, efficient, and resilient energy system (p.28). These benefits also extend well outside of “faster, cheaper, better” visions of our pre-existing infrastructure systems. As the repot elaborates on, the social impacts of prioritizing sustainable development are immense, ranging from greater and more equitable access to jobs, housing, and transportation (p.29), improved public health (p.30), and even the elevation of youth, women, and indigenous peoples in discussions of governance (p.32). An investment in a subway system doesn't just reduce the number of cars on the road, it has radical ripple effects for the peoples and communities now enabled through public transit. The same tree that refuses CO2 and surface albedo provides shade and beauty. It's important to focus on these co-benefits because the issues of climate change are immense and the solutions demanded are as numerous as they are complex, but sustainability solutions never function in isolation. We don't address the demands of climate change at the expense of other social, political, or economic developments; we address them in coordination because these systems are fundamentally and irrevocably linked. Comic by cartoonist Joel Pett illustrating the rhetorical strength in focusing on the co-benefits of sustainable development

[lucyhorowitz]

framing #salience

In my opinion, there are two twin problems with climate science/messaging. The first is that it’s an impossible numbers game. The second is that we can’t deal with this fact.

The earth is a very large and complex system (as noted in nearly all of the readings) that has an unthinkable number of interdependent subsystems. We can and do try our hardest to model these, run simulations, but we are inherently limited by our computational power and will never get close enough to a complete picture of what’s going on and what causes will have what effects. There is just too much unpredictability, instability, and literal chaos/nondeterminism. All models are wrong but some are useful, until we realize what we’ve overlooked and then suddenly they are no longer than useful.

Even when we do get numbers out of models and predict x deaths over a few years, n degrees of warming, d dollars of damages, what are they good for? They may enable policymakers and scientists to make decisions about what our next actions should be (at least until we realize the inevitable errors in models, but that’s no longer the point here). So why do we spend so much time, money, and effort to publicize particular statistics and scary big numbers about the climate? Of course there’s something to be said for having an informed and educated populace in a democracy like ours, but I’d argue that shouting out unfathomably large numbers to the man-on-the-street doesn’t actually inform or educate him. Numbers are incredibly difficult things to wrap one’s head around. People regularly make errors in multiple orders of magnitude when talking about these issues without batting an eye because when numbers are that large, we as a species just don’t have the intuition or number sense to incorporate them into a meaningful understanding of the world. I’m doubtful that this can be fixed by better math education; I think it may just be a cognitive limit that applies to most human beings unless they’re astronomers. Without real context or meaning, large numbers coming out of climate studies and onto the front pages of the Times are nothing but rhetorical tools to get people to adopt certain beliefs about what should be done on a political level about the climate. If the relevant number is 6 billion, one could easily say 6 thousand in the same tone and get a comparable reaction from the public.

The introduction to Our Fragile Moment suggests that we embrace “scientific uncertainty,” which is of course reasonable. It’s important to remember, however, that on a large scale we don’t have a good way of doing that. Much like how we aren’t good at numbers, we aren’t good at coping with uncertainty. We expect it from the authorities, and when they are unable to provide it, things go bad. I’m inclined to believe that this has contributed to or is a symptom of the crisis of meaning we see in the world today. For every voice like Our Fragile Moment that addresses the inherent uncertainties in science about a world with so much information we physically cannot cope with it all, there are dozens more trying to make it seem like there is one unified and real source of truth that cannot be questioned. This is a comforting position to take, but it hurts in the long run and on the large scales.

Because these issues are so complicated and they require years and years of dedicated study to even come close to understanding, it is (at least today, with our current standards of education) nearly impossible to have a completely informed populace. It would be desirable if this could change, but it seems as though making complex problems accessible necessarily reduces the amount of relevant information that can be conveyed.

[oliviaegross]

risk #policy #solutions

“Are we doomed? The answer, as we’ll learn, is that it is entirely up to us.” (p. 7, Mann)

Throughout the quarter we have been assessing various unprecedented threats which civilization is facing. Tthis week our readings have a particular focus on environmental devastation. Michael Mann’s Our Fragile Moment struck me in its themes that both are particular to the climate crisis and simultaneously apply to the other existential risks we have discussed thus far. I found his notion of “scientific uncertainty” to be very intriguing. Mann articulates that while different scientific studies often come to at least modestly different conclusions, it is only by assessing the collective evidence across numerous scientific studies that we reach more firm conclusions and begin to establish scientific consensus. This critical emphasis he makes on having a wide net and distant perspective when drawing scientific conclusions aligns with his effective use and mention throughout his book of just how small human civilization's time on Earth has been. As Mann mentions, we have existed for 0.0001 percent of Earth’s history and more particularly, “It’s almost as if this planet, Earth, was custom made for us. And yet it wasn’t.”

Such perspective, conesus, and distance is helpful when approaching the climate crises but can also be effectively applied to other existential crises we have discussed. I was additionally curious about the potentially helpful role of such perspective building when attempting to create optimism and solvability for the climate crisis. Mann repeatedly draws on the importance of the past while attempting to build Perspective. He mentions the role climate has had in shaping and guiding human civilization when asserting its solvability.

“Only by understanding the climate changes of the past and what they tell us about the circumstances that allowed us to thrive, can we appreciate two seemingly contradictory realities. On the one hand, there is the absolute fragility of this moment in time—driven home on a daily basis by each devastating wildfire and every “once in a century” hurricane or 110°F day, collective signs that we seem to be slipping into the chasm of an unlivable planet. On the other hand, however, the study of Earth’s history betrays some degree of climate resilience. Climate change is a crisis, but a solvable crisis.”

The notion of climate resilience and solvability are challenging. While Mann eloquently emphasizes the beauty and thriving potential we have on this planet, he simultaneously discusses how our civilization will be imperiled if we continue on our current path. His balance between hope and frankness I found uniquely productive and it left me reflecting on the fact that while Mann believes we can survive, it is unclear whether we can ever thrive again.

A recent Interface survey found that 95% of climate experts from around the world think Interface’s mission, Climate Take Back, is possible.

[ldbauer1011]

climate #risk #salience #policy

Climate Change is a massive topic to cover, but I want to narrow in on a topic that I feel is criminally underrated. Russia, one Permanent Member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and a key player in international politics, is severely and irresponsible under-cutting its own emissions responsibility in the near future, with severe consequences for the rest of the world.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the leading American foreign policy think tank, released this report about how climate change will affect Russia more than most states in the world thanks to their large levels of Permafrost. Permafrost, naturally, is the layer of snow coverage that does not melt ever, remaining in place year-round. This means that whatever is underneath it, including methane gas and carbon from creatures and plant matter finally given a chance to decompose. The substantial arctic forests in Siberia will also be acutely vulnerable to wildfires, since brush-clearing fires typically seen in lower latitude forests weren’t possible before, providing plenty of material to fuel fires. Add in the expected droughts caused by shifting weather patterns, and large fires that are similar to the 2023 Canadian fire season will become commonplace.

The Russian Government is not in a good place to implement measures to combat these changes. First, Russia is heavily reliant upon fossil fuel production, both economically and politically. Oil barons are key members of Russia’s famous oligarchy, with natural gas production making up a significant portion of Russia’s economy. Regional governments are already experiencing budget shortfalls and even falling into debt, corruption and public service mismanagement is a serious problem already hampering Russia’s public sector, and Vladimir Putin himself has been lukewarm on the issue. Non-profits in Russia pushing for environmental policy have been hollowed out by “foreign agent” restrictions, preventing foreign climate experts and volunteers from advising and running these NGOs. Finally, many common people in Russia are just getting by, since COVID and anemic economic growth have shrunk average household wealth to a point where jumpstarting the economy is a higher priority to many Russians today.

Though this report was published before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, doubtlessly this war has only further diverted public focus and funds away from the serious climate catastrophe approaching Russia. Additionally, this war has isolated Russia from many on the international stage that are committed to combatting climate change, allowing it to dismiss the effort as unattainable and instead focus on short term economic policy. This ambivalence from the world’s 4th largest carbon emitter will only make the rest of the world need to work harder to combat the climate crisis.

[cbgravitt]

climate #solutions #policy

Much of the climate messaging in the past 20-ish years, and especially the 2010s, was focused on individual action. Reduce, reuse, recycle; always compost and carpool; turn off the AC after 6pm; the list goes on. I am not going to argue that any of these things are bad; in an ideal world, everyone who is able will do all of these things. But, the great emphasis placed on individual action served as a shield from the group that was really the greatest driver of climate change: corporations. Fewer than 100 global corporations account for over half of the world's carbon emissions, and yet somehow it is up to the struggling family to make a difference.

In recent years, the average person has become much more aware of their place in the climate crisis: there is very little that they, as an individual, will ever be able to do about climate change. This has led to an outlook that can only be described as defeatist. Children who were educated on the dangers of climate change have grown up to believe that it is totally out of their control compared to the massive power of ultra-wealthy corporate entities, but that simply is not true. If anything, it should encourage young activists to get involved and form as much collective power as possible to force punitive policy towards these corporations, and hold boycotts and protests if world governments fail to act. There have been many stories in the news of late of European climate protestors defacing national treasures to get a point across. Sure, any damage to these many important artefacts is a shame, but the rapid deterioration of the Earth's climate at the hands of startlingly few people who refuse to make drastic changes is far worse.

The unfortunate truth is that it is up to the people to make their voices heard, and as soon as they fall silent the greatest motivator for rapid change dies. Pushing for massive carbon taxes on corporations and billionaires, especially on products and transactions with larger carbon footprints, is essential in combatting the issue. So, too, is ensuring that government and corporate money is divested from fossil fuels and directed to renewable channels. Even if you don't have the luxury of being able to boycott a certain brand, or take a day off from work to go to a protest, there are quick and free ways to make your voice heard. The only way to truly address this crisis properly is to hold those most accountable the most responsible.

[Hai1218]

Framing

In my reading of the recent research by Xu et al. (2020), I've been struck by its potential to effectively reframe our narrative around climate change and human adaptation. This study reveals a fascinating aspect of our historical relationship with the climate: for millennia, humans have predominantly resided in regions with mean annual temperatures around 13 °C, forming what can be termed the 'human temperature niche'. This pattern likely mirrors deep-rooted constraints and has shaped our thriving for over 6,000 years. However, the projection of an imminent and dramatic shift in this niche due to escalating climate change signifies a radical departure from thousands of years of human-climate equilibrium.

The study's skillful reframing of climate change impacts is particularly resonant. Moving beyond traditional narratives centered on economic or social costs, it appeals directly to the human experience of displacement and relocation. For instance, the projection that “Over the coming 50 years, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside these optimal climate conditions,” serves as a powerful illustration of the potential human trauma on an unprecedented scale. Simultaneously, the research acknowledges that while some regions will face deteriorating conditions, others may see improvements. This duality presents migration and the redistribution of agricultural production as integral parts of humanity's adaptive response, painting a picture of resilience and adaptation in the face of global transformation.

What I also found very interesting is that the research deviates from the deterministic view of climate change, reframing the narrative from a fatalistic "we're all going to die" to a more nuanced "we will thrive in other parts of the world, albeit at a tremendous cost." This perspective does not diminish the severity of the projected climatic shifts while paving the way for discussions on adaptation and resilience. By recognizing the historical human temperature niche, we gain a deeper appreciation of the interplay between climate and human thriving, suggesting that while the challenges are significant, there is room for hope and action, provided we are willing to confront and adapt to these new realities. In sum, the shifting away from a "apocalyptic view" doused with horrific data points to a more "we can do more to avoid human trauma" could prime a potentially stronger collective action response.

I am including a link here, where a behavioral scientist talks about how appealing to the heart, not the brain, can increase people's prosocial behaviors.

[summerliu1027]

Framing

This week's reading points out an important aspect of framing climate discussions that I think should be widely adopted. One major issue that we have seen in climate discussions across the board is the difficulty of truly understanding scientific results and their gravity, as opposed to reading numbers that do not mean anything to the ordinary person. The Xu et al. research and the Introduction by Michael Mann both used a technique that I find particularly effective: the scaling of human existence in relation to the planet as a whole.

While reading the research by Xu et al., I found myself deeply intrigued by the concept of the "human climate niche." As discussed in a previous memo by Hai1218, this manner of framing global warming in terms of displacement seems much closer to the regular person's daily lived experiences. This notion that the cradle of human civilization was and is so closely tied to specific climatic conditions, particularly to mean annual temperatures, puts the more scientific approaches such as the synthesis report into context, where a few degrees increase in temperature immediately gains critical importance if the human climate niche is as narrow as a 4 degrees Celius difference. Considering the overall possible span of Earth's temperature, this 4-degree space seems even more precious.

Mann also successfully points out the incredibly short period of this niche's existence: 0.0001% of total Earth history. Mann emphasizes the fleeting moment of human existence in the vast timeline of Earth's history; it reminds us of the fragility of our current climatic conditions, that the stable climate we've enjoyed for millennia is an exception rather than the norm in Earth's geological timeline. As he puts it in the beginning of the chapter: we live on a Goldilocks planet. The essence of any fairytale is that the good times are a bubble meant to burst someday.

Humans might just be a cold that Earth caught recently.

[DNT21711]

Risk #Solutions

One of the biggest risks identified in the readings for this week is shifting of the human climate niche leading to economic and social dislocation. Even in places where mean annual temperatures increase, the shifts in rainfall could make regions that were traditionally fertile so inhospitable that agricultural productivity will plummet. Indeed, such a risk is more marked in those areas that are located closer to the equator and are believed to witness rather high increases of temperature that would take them out of the optimal climatic niche for living and agriculture. The impacts that are expected to result from such a shift are two-fold. First, an apparent direct economic impact is that local economies surrounding agriculture manifest downfalls—most of these areas are usually heavily reliant on agriculture not only for food but also gainfully in terms of employment and income. Secondly, there is a social impact whereby communities are likely to be forced to migrate in search of more habitable conditions and cause potential conflict over natural resources, strain on the urban infrastructures, and the loss of cultural and community ties.

Climate-resilient agriculture is indicated as one of the options to cope with a displacement risk. It means developing and adopting aspects of crop production that include varieties, management practices, and policies suitable to enable farmers to withstand and recover from the increased uncertainty and volatility expected in food production to climate. This is witnessing scientists and most agronomists resort to the use of biotechnology as a tool for would-be crop development that tolerate high temperatures and water stress owing to massive variation in precipitation regimes, so as to keep food secure. Notable among engineered crops are drought-resistant maize, which can go a long way in sustaining agricultural output and the rural economies of regions with declining amounts of rainfall.

The health of soils is boosted by three main practices of climate-resilient agriculture, which include cover cropping, agroforestry and conservation tillage that increase water retention. These impact biodiversity, carbon stocking, reduce chemical dependency and also on-farm resilience to climate variability.

Thus, these agricultural innovations need research and development investments for their implementation along with extension services to transfer knowledge to the farmers. Policies promoting sustainable practices by farmers must be devised. These are likely to include subsidies on crop resilient to climate, insurance against the crop failure risk due to climatic extremes and market support for agriculture products that are new in the market.

This solution does not only reduce the risk of displacement by preserving the viability of agricultural livelihoods but also contributes to the broader goal of sustainable development by promoting food security and maintaining the services of ecosystems. Anyway, the problem with this solution hinges on the political will, international cooperation, as well as the financial mechanisms to offer changes necessitated at the scale appropriate to tackle the predictions of the impacts set within the article.

[jamaib]

origin #framing

Michael Mann highlights an important issue that is often forgotten when discussing climate change. Often we forget that this planet was not "custom made for us"; we are but temporary renters in Earth's long history of tenants. This of course is a very humbling and almost incomprehensible thing to consider but it is helpful to keep in mind when considering our future with Earth.

As Mann highlights although our conditions seem "perfect" on Earth, they are balanced on a thin thread made possible by climate changes in Earth's history. This thread can easily be snapped (as we have learned) at any point in time but is sure to happen if human activity continues as is. Up until this point humans (for the most part) we have looked at Earth as a tool to our existence and a place that we have influence on. Instead Mann invites us in the midst of a critical climate change "to look at the influence that Earth’s climate history has had on us and what we can learn from it." This is a simple but powerful realization that could be essential to the survival of humanity (and our collective sanity).

The unpredictability of our future climate cannot be denied (after all our existence in the first place stemmed from a series of unpredictable events) but, the worst of it is solvable. However, this will not be possible without first considering Earth's impact on humanity and how humanity can coexist with Earth. How can we replicate and maintain Earth's original conditions (that led to the thriving of humanity) while continuing to thrive as a society? This is not easy answerable but should be considered at all times moving forward. To often corporations and individuals have only pursued their own potential benefits without considering the effect on the planet or rather their home. If we shift collectively shift our point of view our "unpredictable" and "dire" reality can be changed.

[madsnewton]

climate #framing #risk

The 2023 IPCC Climate Change report states that it is “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C” based on current emissions predictions for 2030. Most news stories I see about climate change and human emissions usually use this data for headlines. For most people, that likely means nothing because 1.5°C doesn’t seem like a lot, or that it could have that severe of consequences for the planet. I think it’s helpful to instead look at other things that are affected by emissions beyond the global temperature. For example, the ocean is adversely affected by human CO2 emissions by means of ocean acidification. The 2023 IPCC Climate Change report lists upper ocean acidification to be “virtually certain” in being attributed to human influence.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the ocean absorbs nearly a third of all CO2 emissions. As more CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, the balance of the different forms of carbon in the ocean is thrown off and leads to a lower pH/increased acidity. This can negatively impact coral and shelled organisms’ abilities to calcify, and they will be unable to create and maintain shells and other calcium carbonate-based structures. These consequences can inevitably move up the food chain and affect larger organisms, like human communities that rely on the ocean for food. As someone in an earlier memo mentioned, it can be easier and more beneficial to appeal to someone’s emotions rather than just their logic. With this in mind for encouraging climate action, the image of declining coral reefs and other sea life feels much more real and poignant than simply saying that the planet is expected to warm by 1.5°C or more before the end of the century.

Model of how ocean acidification can affect the ocean ecosystem

[AnikSingh1]

climate #framing #salience

Continuing on from discussion of last week, the reading by Chi Xu and others regarding the future of the human climate called my attention to the actions people will do to ignore, run away from, or minimize the effects of climate change selfishly. Instead of adopting the idea that climate change is dangerous, it is clear that there are many defensive mechanisms that are written in this paper to highlight (or perhaps lowlight) what people will do to avoid the problem entirely.

One of these problems that came to mind is the idea of migration - in areas with higher sea-levels and tides, migration to avoid immediate danger is a natural human response to a disaster as large as climate change. Migration can allow for benefits to societies, allowing for more innovation and opportunities, but also comes at a cost - the problem seems to unwaveringly stick around. Just because the problem is not affecting the immediate area does not necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist at all. Add to this fact that it “remains impossible at this point to foresee the extent of climate-drive redistribution of the human population” (11354) and we start to see a lack of immediate repercussion for this action. I am by no means saying that migration is a solution, looked down upon, or morally wrong - I am just mentioning this action and its potential impacts for the future. It is through these methods that the projected climate change remains at large and important in understanding the scale of magnitude the problem presents.

Global warming has definitely been talked about more in the past decade than ever before, and a byproduct of this talk is that it has possibly fear mongered people to taking immediate action. When a problem becomes too difficult to solve on one’s own, it can be easy to dismiss the problem entirely. However, the climate’s condition and its urgency has been able to spread awareness to fight climate change and make people smarter about what they are doing to handle this imminent danger. With some unity and a built up perception of what we want the future to look like, I believe that it is important to hone in on what makes people motivated to take action, rather than run away from what could be the danger coming forward. Whether it’s government policy, social outreach, or any other mandated task, starting small to preserve the environment before it gets worse will definitely be on the minds of individuals who hope to have a future life on this planet. Taking ownership and not making problems smaller than they are has already been made as an effort step - now action will have to be taken.

My comic here shows the unity of these individuals compensating for what has happened to sidewalks when the world has gone too far -- since the problem will only get worse, it is human nature to dismiss mistakes and make them out as small/not important compared to what is happening in the real world.

[mibr4601]

I was particularly captivated by Michael Mann’s, “Our Fragile Moment.” Almost everybody is aware of the crisis of climate change, but there is truly no way to accurately project the changes we are going to experience. Michael Mann used the example of Senator Muskie and how a scientist delivered a heap of papers saying that climate change was going to be a danger. But there was also the other side saying that all those papers did not have enough evidence. This was in the 1970s, but it is still true to our day. David Wallace-Wells also brought this up in his talk that all of our projections were completely wrong. There isn’t really a way to tell what the world is really going to look like. We can’t say with certainty that if we take these actions then the crisis will diminish by this much. This hardly means that we can’t do anything to slow down climate change. This should not be taken as humanity is doomed, as there is still hope if we take action. Countless scientific papers can give us insight into what happens if the earth has its temperature raised by 3 or 4 degrees. This was in the summary for policymakers where they gave numbers of species losses and increased heat humidity risk. It is evident that we should not be accepting climate change as there will be terrible ramifications. While we may not have numbers that tell us what doing a certain action will do, we must try to prevent further climate change. We will have to accept the consequences of our previous actions and what we have imposed on ourselves, but that doesn’t mean that it should become the new normal and that we should not try to reverse the damages as best as possible. We have always lived in uncertainty and we have often lived through many crises. This doesn’t mean that we should do nothing about it as you need to start and continue working to really make progress on any crisis.

[gabrielmoos]

origin, #solutionish, #climate, #emerging

I am a techno-optimist, and while I understand the future I am proposing is farfetched, I believe technology can augment the livelihood of those affected by climate change. I am pessimistic about the amount of time that we spend on the internet and behind screens today, however, I cannot deny the fact that people are spending more and more of their waking hours behind screens. It does not matter if it’s for work or leisure, our world is digitizing. In the readings this week we discussed the impending displacement of humans that will occur if we wish to keep the same mean annual temperature (MAT) distribution of humans globally (1.5 billion - 3.5 billion). While I believe that humans are resilient and can bend to and not break to these global changes in temperature (~7.5˚C on land), it will require the movement of people to colder regions of the planet. In the modern day we have seen at least two examples of climate change refugees, Syrians whose land in the fertile crescent dried up and moved to large cities, which helped fuel the Syrian civil war and now the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe. On the other hand, residents on the island of Kiribati have accepted their fate with climate change and rising sea levels, and have devised a plan to move to Fiji when their country becomes uninhabitable. We don’t have sufficient information on the geopolitics of the future, so we do not know how many more Kiribatis or Syrias the world will see. All of this being said, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of climate change refugees because of the global digitization trend. Let's say its 30-50 years into the future, global temperatures have risen by 7.5˚C (since 1850-1900) on land and we are witnessing more extreme flooding, higher temperatures, and longer droughts. I am optimistic that we will develop more advanced dykes, hurricane-resistant buildings, resilient food supply chains, globally cheap/green electricity, and widely available air conditioning units (Europe had more than 60K heat-related deaths, compared to 600 in the US, however, fewer than 10% of Europeans have AC units, whereas more than 90% of Americans have AC). These technological advances point towards more resilient and comfortable living arrangements amidst changing environments. This paired with the strong tailwind of digitization predicts a world where humans spend more time inside and in front of screens. The 2021 launch of the metaverse was premature, however, it does provide another avenue of digitization via synchronous simulated interactions, for which the current digitization numbers don’t include. I understand that this proposed future is far from perfect and even somewhat dystopic, however, it does seem to be a step above a series of global and local wars due to climate refugees. The topic "human/social consequences" is quite fitting, it is our job to pick one.

[AudreyPScott]

climate #risk

The most striking piece of the climate change conversation to me -- and, for many people in America, the most personally impactful -- is the likely resulting refugee crisis. As Mann notes, embracing scientific uncertainty is a necessity in this period of time of the climate crisis (Mann 4): such uncertainty, additionally, must be extended to the social sciences and sociological factors. This is compounded when examining the possible impact and magnitude of migration as a response to climate shifts towards an unlivable planet. "A range of analyses suggests that changes of climatic conditions can exert enough stress to trigger migration," (Xu 11354), Xu notes, with historical examples including migration and imperial collapse during the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the European Little Ice Age. But the intertwined nature of movement -- with factors being rooted not only in direct environmental effects but the social and political landscape -- makes it a much more difficult thing to model than controlled ecosystems.

Regardless of our ability to meaningfully and quantifiably predict it, migration will occur on our current path, or people will become victims to infrastructure that cannot handle record-breaking hot temperatures and rising sea levels. Here, Xu et al make an additionally interesting point: a historical example they draw upon is the Syrian droughts that led to an increasingly dense urban landscape, resulting, ultimately, in tension. Our reminder here is what Professor Holz said when defining a doomsday-scenario -- a midnight. The world may not awash itself in a fiery blaze with the wrath of miniature suns, nor may it be felled by an airborne virus, but rather a desperate disruption from normalcy with no alternative while preserving human life and dignity. This slow creep is a climate doomsday scenario with a human cost, one that's not polar bears in the arctic or lakes drying up -- but it's a feasible reality. The IPCC report further highlights this risk of "growing inequality and urbanisation." (15). However, when examining solutions and pressure alleviation measures, planned relocation and resettlement were each rated poorly for feasibility and synergy with mitigation (27). In terms of the pure human cost to climate change, we are sorely unprepared.

Sell their houses to who, Ben? #$!& Aquaman??

[briannaliu]

#climatechange #salience #framing #solutions

Corporate interests in seeking profits oftentimes stand in the way of climate action. For example, oil companies like Glencore, ExxonMobil, and Stellantis lobby for policies that conflict with their own pledges to cut carbon emissions (see image below). This irony demonstrates a crucial principle: it’s easy enough for corporations to say they are on board with climate change, but in practice, these pledges unravel as soon as it becomes costly for companies to follow through with them.

This principle applies to corporations and consumers alike. Many consumers support climate action in theory, but when presented with real steps to mitigate one’s own carbon footprint, their support tends to falter.

The Imperial College of London suggests ways for individuals to combat climate change, including eating less meat and dairy, cutting back on flying, driving less, and reducing energy use at home. The unfortunate reality is that individuals, like corporations, are motivated by self-interest, and few are willing to give up their preferences of comfort and convenience that offer them immediate gratification in favor of forward-thinking alternatives that will benefit society years in the future. Thus, individuals tend to prioritize themselves over the broader society, and when they are in a bind, they are inclined to follow the path of least resistance. For example, if a person plans to take the bus to work but are running late, they are not likely to still take the bus and accept being late. Rather, they are much more likely to hurriedly jump in their car to make it on time to work without giving it a second thought. We do this because we don’t quite internalize the costs of our choices when they have no immediate personal effect on us. In making quick, seemingly harmless choices like these, we reap the benefits of emitting carbon but get to share the consequences with 8 billion other people.

To help frame our dilemma, we face a collective action problem. We as citizens would all be better off if we cooperated and partook in climate change reduction efforts, but largely fail to due to the personal costs associated with taking part in individual climate action. In fact, we find ourselves in what is called a Tragedy of the Commons, where individuals with access to a public resource (in this case, our planet) act in their own self-interest and deplete the resource (harm our planet).

If we want to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions, I believe we must institute a carbon tax on both consumers and corporations to disincentivize selfish behavior. To correctly price the carbon tax, we must consider the “social cost” of carbon emissions. This social cost is debated among many policymakers, but for example, if one ton of carbon emissions costs the public $100, there should be a $100/ton carbon tax. This tax only needs to be taxed once, to the producer, who will internalize this added “social cost” and reduce their emissions accordingly. The producer will, in turn, pass this cost onto the consumer, who too will decrease their carbon footprint to reflect the new price tag. People are motivated by self-interest, which got us into this climate crisis in the first place. It would be foolish not to leverage our understanding of self-interest to resolve the crisis. With a carbon tax, we’ll be able to reliably and effectively move the needle for climate action among corporations and consumers alike, whether they care for climate change or not.

[maevemcguire]

solutions/#risk

 I also think Figure 5PM.5 in IPCC’s 2023 Climate Change Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (pasted below) provided a really important visualization of the extreme levels of mitigation needed to limit Global warming to 1.5 or even 2°C. I think there is a common misconception that 2°C warming is the “business as usual” scenario. In reality, limiting this Global warming to 2°C would actually require a drastic cut to GHG and CO2 emissions. As mentioned in this summary, this would require a prioritization and integration of equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion, and adaptation accompanied by mitigation strategies. Similarly, in the Future of the Human Climate Niche, this temperature niche is expected to change more in the upcoming 50 years than it has since 6000 BP. Though they acknowledge the transparency of their methods, explanations, and analysis, and its tendency to lose some nuance, I wanted a new angle to the climate justice questions of the acuteness of effects on the poorest regions of the world, lacking adaptive capacity. I was also interested that net zero CO2 will be reached before net zero GHGs.

origin

In Our Fragile Moment, Mann opens with “It’s almost as if this planet, Earth, was custom made for us. And yet it wasn’t.” He stresses the importance of embracing scientific uncertainty, and the importance of using this uncertainty as a reason to use greater precaution and concerted action instead of an excuse to distrust it. I also think he provided a very important perspective into the perspectives surrounding climate change and climate action by saying, “The greatest threat to meaningful climate action today is no longer denial, but despair and doomism, premised on the flawed notion that it is too late to do anything.” The answer to the question of whether or not we’re doomed is still entirely up to the actions we take. 

[kallotey]

risk

When considering environmental devastation’s impact on communities, one has to consider dynamics of societal well-being by examining aspects such as social cohesion, cultural heritage, and adaptive capacity. Xu et al state that migration won’t be clearly impacted by climate change, but rather climate change may expedite the process at which people have to move. The disruptions caused by environmental degradation can lead to displacement, loss of livelihoods, and challenges to traditional ways of life because of floodings, rising sea levels, drought, famine, extreme heat conditions, and more. So, it would be worth considering the impact of human resilience and the potential for societal adaptation to changing environmental conditions. Understanding these social nuances provides valuable insights into the holistic implications of environmental devastation beyond purely numerical metrics.

On the quantitative front, climate models play a pivotal role in risk assessment by providing data-driven insights into the potential impact of environmental changes. These models employ sophisticated algorithms and simulations to quantify factors such as temperature increases, sea level rise, and the frequency of extreme weather events. However, the Mann piece does emphasize scientific uncertainty and the importance of embracing it. Mann posits that taking a paleoclimatic view of the Earth’s climate could potentially yield greater results which reminds me of Ritchie’s perspective shift idea that if we understood what leads up to events in the news, we could approach the future with more ease. Policymakers, scientists, and stakeholders rely on these quantitative assessments to make informed decisions about mitigation and adaptation strategies. Being able to break down the numbers and graphs in this way, through history, may be a greater way to enhance our capacity to anticipate and plan for the challenges posed by climate change, thereby facilitating evidence-based responses to mitigate risks and protect vulnerable regions and populations. Integrating both analyses is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted risks associated with environmental devastation.

Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/PC2QxQMKJcpFTGkW6

[emersonlubke]

origins, #risk, #solutions, #framing

What struck me immediately in the "Future of the Human Climate Niche" video was the immediate postulate that we don't actually have an exact understanding of the conditions necessary for humans to thrive. It seems almost beyond belief to me that we don't have a more comprehensive understanding of the specific thresholds that could have such impact on our survival as a species. How do we not know exactly how much warmer the Earth can get before humanity in its current form is fundamentally unsustainable? Further, and I know I am far from the first person to have this idea, but as the human climate niche shrinks and we are increasingly incapable of spreading around the globe what on Earth are the future wars going to look like. When millions of people have their homes destroyed and need to flee elsewhere (and I understand events like this have happened in refugee situations or similar, but they're increasing frequency would -- i imagine -- increase the militance of groups getting their homeland destroyed) how will they react to being told that they can't cross a border? "However, such economic hotspots occur at some- what colder conditions than the center of the population distri- butions (Fig. 1F vs. Fig. 1A), and explaining such patterns of economic dominance requires unraveling the dynamics of his- torical, cultural, and institutional settings (10–14), which is be- yond the scope of this paper." This is issue is so all-encompassing it can make any projection of the future incredibly daunting. No paper could reasonably seek to explore the entirety of the climate issue, which is part of the reason I think it is such an issue. It is so cloudy and general and requires such an overhaul of many parts of our current society that people prefer not to think about it.

Image: It just blew my mind that the paper said the mean human experienced temperature would be +7.5 c in 2070.

[ejcrane]

climate #salience

One thing that struck me from Michael Mann's Our Fragile Moment is just how sensational news about science is and how that can relate to our climate. As Mann states, very often there are these blockbuster stories that convey one extreme one week just to convey the other the next. I believe this induces a kind of anterograde amnesia, where the average person is just blasted with so many boons and catastrophes from various subjects that they remain somewhat paralyzed, demoralized, and ignorant regarding climate change (although surely other subjects as well). Because of this effect that prevents people from taking political action, climate change as a problem is certainly not only an ecological issue but a sociological issue. Much like Fahrenheit 451, this constant sensationalism prevents the propagation of actual knowledge, by giving the end user such a massive deluge of information that nothing ever has the time to stick. How are we to combat this? One would have to somehow dismantle the 24/7 news cycle, remove the profit motives from tabloids big and small, and reorient the entirety of science such that only the bigger picture gets through. Possible, maybe. In my opinion, most certainly improbable. I think another answer we have is to avoid changing the monolithic behemoths of television and instead focusing on information warfare on the social media front. Through memes and infographics, I believe we have the power to slowly but surely fight sensationalism with sensationalism, empowering users by installing biases that encourage them to maybe not necessarily be alarmist, but most certainly alarmed.

[WPDolan]

origin #climate #solutions

One (semi)hopeful story that is worth noting and comparing to our current climate crisis is the depletion of the ozone layer and its recovery.

The ozone layer is a portion of the atmosphere that contains a high concentration of ozone (O_3) molecules. Atmospheric ozone molecules absorb a significant amount of UV radiation from the Sun by repeatedly breaking into individual oxygen molecules and recombining to become ozone again. Through this process, the energy in high-frequency UV waves, which are especially harmful to DNA (and consequently all life on Earth), is converted into heat, preventing them from reaching the Earth’s surface. As a result, the ozone layer can be viewed as a sort of “shield” against high energy UV rays, making it one of the many fragile components responsible for the continued existence of life on the planet.

Because of the ozone layer’s importance, there was significant alarm in the 70s and 80s when researchers discovered that atmospheric ozone was decreasing. The cause of this decrease was attributed to human activity, in particular to the release of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. In response to this upcoming crisis, the international community signed numerous treaties and agreements that sought to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and promote related research. The most notable of these agreements were the Montreal Protocol and The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which were ratified by all members of the United Nations. As a result of actions taken by signatories of these treaties, the depletion of the ozone layer stopped and scientists now believe that ozone levels will return to pre-depletion levels within the century. (page 4)

So why were these treaties successful in preventing the destruction of the ozone layer, while similar climate treaties like the Paris Agreement have seen more limited success? One major factor is that it is much harder to become carbon neutral than it is to phase out a smaller range of chemicals, which were primarily used in aerosols and refrigerants. While the global community has made significant progress in transitioning to renewable energy, the transition has also required the construction of significant infrastructure. Additionally, organizations who would be economically disadvantaged by such this transition have a much louder voice and capability to spread skepticism in the science that motivated widespread action.

Despite these differences, I believe that the story of the ozone layer provides some precedent and hope in the international community’s ability to cooperate and make changes for the sake of the planet.

Image: Ozone projections, NASA

[aaron-wineberg02]

Policy #Solutions

  Migration and climate change will be intrinsically linked for the years to come. In order to promote active measures to control climate change, international agencies need to highlight the specific humanitarian costs of temperature increases. Currently, the IPCC is making broad representations that do not invite policy interventions.   Particularly, agricultural devastation could be a major product of climate change in the coming years. The policymakers report from the IPCC identified key areas where devastation will come first. Even with a 1.6 degree increase in average global temperatures, maize production will drop dramatically. This will be found most prominently in Iraq and Iran—a geopolitical hotspot—and Mexico. This effect is found with many important crops.   If global temperatures increase further, India, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the US Midwest will all observe major drops in production. Food is portable, but major drops in productivity will destroy economies. Especially in developing nations where subsistence farming and basic agricultural output is central to hundreds of millions of individuals.   I suspect these trends will become apparent in both domestic and international migratory patterns. Moving from Kansas to Michigan is not politically controversial, but major movement across borders will create conflict.   Syrian Civil War created an untenable situation across Europe following a wave of millions of refugees. Some of the consequences included new nationalist political movements – note the recent German protests following the AfD surge in polls.   Consider the blowback to refugees from India and Pakistan after widespread agricultural downturns. This could massively destabilize regions and promote anti-immigration attitudes at a compounded level. I propose, as a modest next step, predicting where Malthusian population pressures may emerge first.   The UN should produce a major report highlighting how specific countries will bear the cost of a global climate catastrophe, even if their country will be relatively insulated. Make targeted recommendations as that would spur specific debates.

(reuploaded to format)

[GreatPraxis]

framing #climate

Global warming is widely recognized as an established scientific fact, yet as we saw in class last week, a significant portion of the American population, approximately 54%, remains skeptical or uncertain about the human responsibility underlying climate change. This raises the question of what factors contribute to this disbelief in scientific matters. I argue that journalists and sensationalist headlines play a crucial role, leading to a decline in public trust in climate change.

In the book "Our Fragile Moment," Michael Mann explores the idea that living in an era of climate uncertainty is marked by a continuous stream of headlines, such headlines foster public skepticism. He indicates that phrases such as "once in a century hurricanes" or predictions of the Greenland Ice Sheet being "on the verge of collapse" evoke alarm. However, it's crucial for the public to recognize that the scientific uncertainty surrounding global warming leads to various papers proposing novel theories that have yet to endure rigorous testing. When journalists seize upon these papers and create sensationalist headlines to boost website interactions, it has the potential to undermine efforts in climate change advocacy.

For instance, below we can see a compilation of media headlines addressing climate news. These headlines discuss the same Nature paper by Kulp and Strauss (2019), claiming that, due to a new reanalysis method of old data, estimates of the number of people at risk from rising sea levels have been underestimated by a factor of three. However, a noticeable disparity exists in the way this news is presented. The Independent largely focuses on simply reporting the paper's results, while others, such as CNN and the most egregious offender, The Mirror, attempt to emphasize a doomsday scenario, intensifying people's fears. The remaining headlines fall along a spectrum between these two extremes. One might argue that such media outlets sensationalize content merely to generate more interactions but do not have benevolent intentions. Although this lack of benevolent motives might be accurate, unintentionally, these headlines contribute to what Michael Mann described as "the greatest threat to meaningful climate action today [which] is no longer denial, but despair and doomism, premised on the flawed notion that it is too late to do anything" (p.6). In other words, the significant percentage of people who are unsure or disbelieving in the human element of climate change may stem from the perception that it is too late to take any meaningful action. Negative headlines, especially when doomsday scenarios fail to materialize, contribute to this distrust. There is a compelling argument that journalists, if they aim to support climate advocacy, should refrain from generating sensationalist headlines based on uncertain and bleeding-edge scientific research. Instead, engaging in more realistic discussions about the future of climate change—discussions that exclude highly unlikely doomsday scenarios but still highlight the negative consequences—could foster a more constructive dialogue. Michael Mann's book sets an example by focusing on the resilience the human race has demonstrated in previous large-scale climate events and what history can teach us about our present-day troubles.

Image courtesy of CarbonBrief.org

[agupta818]

I found the discussion around migration as a response to climate change in the Xu et al paper really interesting. With the conversation on climate change in the media and most material I have engaged with focusing more on solutions to the crisis, those who are major contributors, and why fossil fuels are dangerous-which which are important discussions to be had- mass migration was not a consequence I had seen being discussed as often as the other concerns. While the paper establishes that the authors are unsure of the level of climate-driven redistribution that could occur in the future, I wonder if this is a more immediate reality than most may realize. Looking into this further, I found that this is already a reality for many people in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. It is disheartening to see countries with lower contributions to the carbon footprint and usage of fossil fuels have their citizens be the ones forced to leave their homes and start anew, often struggling to find new places to inhabit.

India is also a modern day example that raises concerns more specifically over the impact of high temperatures and high population density on health and survival, as India's population density is an astonishing 481 people per kilometer squared. They have also had higher mortality rates from more recent heat waves that have been correlated with their large population density. Heat waves are not the only climate risk that these individuals face, but also the amount of high air pollution in dense cities as it is estimated that 2 million people die each year in India from causes related to the air pollution in the country. Could the migration of people from India into other countries help to reduce the mortality from heat waves and air pollution? In a 2021 press release by the World Bank, they believe that by 2050, 216 million people will be forced to migrate within their own countries as a result of climate change. Still, after the initial internal displacement, some will leave their countries because they have no other choice, and nations must learn to take accountability for these situations and advocate for better climate refugee policy. While migrating could help to mitigate some of the health effects, another major problem is awaiting these proposed migrants is where should they go. Is being a climate refugee going to be enough for them to be able to be granted asylum and residence in a country? According the Council on Foreign Relations, climate refugees have some international rights but are not protected internationally by law and many governments are not obligated to protect those who are crossing their borders. A start to improving climate refugee policy and making migration a reality for those in dire conditions is to have the UN better define what a climate refugee is, which could grant them greater rights and protection. Then again, will governments be willing to accept these changes to policy and grant asylum to more refugees? If the number of climate migrants increases consistently year to year, I find it hard to believe that countries like the United States will be willing to take large numbers of climate refugees, which again begs the question: where do these people go?

policy #risk #climate

[Daniela-miaut]

risk #nuclear #cyber

I am interested if the geological change of human climate niche will cause large-scale warfare. As seen from the Xu et al. paper, the suitable areas move so significantly that it can impact half of or even an entire country. Though current issues are focused on immigration, I am skeptical about the state power’s tolerance to immigration on such a big scale. I doubt if a state would restrain itself from invading others if it’s economy is on the decline because of climate change. I also do not think that those nations who benefit from climate change will easily share their new resources with others — While a small number of refugees are called refugees, the immigration of maybe one third to half of a country (maybe together with their industry) are technically an invasion. Climate change can also impact international relations in other ways. For instance, the melting Arctic Ocean brings future opportunities to Trans-Arctic shipping routes, which may be a new opportunity, but it can also bring new conflicts of interest between European and North American nations.

There is a common argument against the danger of climate change, saying that human has strong adaptive power to it. However, even though this argument holds, one possible future is that millions (maybe billions) get killed in the conflicts aroused by the change of global power relations, not to say the increased risks of nuclear war or devastating cyberattacks. The human civilization will probably be devastated by the chain reactions of climate change before the earth really becomes an inhabitable planet.

The image below is about a hypothesis of future Trans-Arctic sailing routes. Just be imaginative about how many conflicts there can be between the countries near the Central Arctic route. Also look at the traditional routes to imagine the consequence if they decline in the future.

[aidanj5]

framing

"If you want to understand a society, look at the art it produces." -Walter Benjamin

The 2024 Clock announcement has once again prompted me to think about why we represent our doomedness, our nuclear and climate status, as a clock. I am also interested in how the IPCC 2023 report argues its case, especially with the use of numbers and the nesting of medium confidence to nigh-certainty in its writing. I believe we can read this into a societal critique of our nervousness, and how we might be responding poorly to both the clock and the report, to identify a different framing for contemporary us, one of compassion or empathy.

The Doomsday Clock first manifested in 1947 thanks to Martyl Langsdorf, who developed the clock to "convey the urgency of getting atomic weapons under control" (Brittanica). At that time, Manhattan Project scientists composed the Bulletin. The publication, while not shunning any interested members of the public, was started motivated by scientists and for scientists to build up technological safety around a new emergent technology. By 1947, clocks were definitely in use by most of society. It was created in the same sort of modern world in which we live, where centralized agencies with funding, removed from common citizens' experiences, work out the details to ensure the safety and betterment of everyone's life. Yet, our world is different: we live in an age of fast media, with information, whether valid or not, spreads diffusely through algorithms and wide-reaching networks. The amount of technologies we are concerned with have ballooned: not only is it nuclear technology control, but policy control, game theory, with climate change added as a new existential threat, and multipliers, almost as if we are playing an arcade game, in regional wars and artificial intelligence. This world is not one of control, and perhaps is not imaged well by the steady ticking of a clock. While it reached two minutes to midnight in 1953 due to advanced nuclear testing, improved relationships between the nuclear powers brought the countdown to seventeen minutes to midnight in 1991. It is only after the Soviet Union's dissolution we have begun to think of our risk in seconds instead of minutes, at the same time as we are bombarded with diffuse sources of information at a far faster rate year after year. This urgency the clock proposes is mirrored in all the media we consume, and it can be hard to isolate the value of having the stressor of the clock when we are already under the stress of short media. Instead of having a clock tick down, it may be better to take the anxiety, the short thinking of the age and lend it some creative capacity. Perhaps more and more boots marching in unison? More and more voices joining a choir?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988, during a time of increased international cooperation between superpowers, perhaps best visible through Soviet Union policies like Glasnost. While not exactly art, I will view it through a similar sort of lens, as it is a work that stands on its own, outside of the artist, with an intent and a meaning each reader will glean from it. The 2023 report for public policy reports the opinion of experts charged with fully considering the situation at hand and reporting the certainty of projected outcomes. This sort of reporting participates in the same sort of control that the Doomsday clock originally intended, where a small group of people were writing to a small audience to make executive decisions. Yet these experts are not scientists but policy makers. Using numbers and degrees of confidence to convince policy makers implies a worldview where leaders do not operate on a personal level, but rather operate on a population characterized purely by numbers. Quantifying the number of future climate refugees as 1.5 billion, or by sea levels increasing by 2-3m, does nothing to convey the urgency by which the climate is changing, nor does it predict how human life is changing now. Perhaps having an auxiliary public policy report that shows the effects of the Hawaii fires, the Libya floods, and highlights risk regions, and current at-risk citizens, would do more to promote action in those invested with power.

Below is a link to a YouTube video I watched years ago by a movie review channel. I remember the video invoking how humans respond to crisis, respond to being doomed, in a matter that fills us with hope much more than fills us with dread. Notably, the video is as long as an episode of a sitcom, and if you watch the video, maybe it may not feel as strongly as it did to me when I had watched much of the creator's content before. Yet this video has the quality of hope that an additional new https://youtu.be/vT_sKGbP1yY?si=eMzmnytdAUN_B70t

[tosinOO]

origin #salience

Focusing on the PNAS 2020 article, to me it presents one of the more compelling narratives about the historical, holistic relationship between human populations and climate, emphasizing the fundamental nature of this relationship and the potentially drastic consequences of climate change. One primary reason it's challenging to think and talk about climate change is how people often describe it and approach it as "abstract". Unlike immediate, tangible problems (a terrorism event for example), climate change is a slow-moving crisis with effects that are often not directly observable in the short term. In other words, it's a slow burn (no pun intended). This temporal and spatial disconnect makes it hard for most individuals to perceive climate change as an immediate threat, leading to a lack of urgency in addressing it. Historically, human civilization has developed in a stable climatic niche, with most technological and agricultural advancements tailored to these conditions. This historical reliance has created a false sense of permanence, leading many to underestimate the vulnerability of our societal structures to changing climates. I'm not saying we'll wake up one day and metal skyscraper start melting, but I think that's what it would take for some people to see this issue for what it is: an issue. The historical perspective also shows a pattern of incremental advancements, often at the expense of environmental considerations, obviously leading to our current predicament. The industrial revolution, reliance on fossil fuels, and mass production have significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions, as we all know. This technological trajectory, primarily driven by the pursuit of economic growth and efficiency, has inadvertently set the stage for the current climate crisis. But I would believe it to be more likely that people would take the advancements we have now at the expense of the environment.

There are certainly vested interests and ideologies that hinder the recognition and response to climate change. Certain industries, like fossil fuels, have a direct financial interest in downplaying the risks of climate change and have historically funded misinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the scientific consensus. Additionally, political ideologies that prioritize economic growth and individual freedoms over collective environmental responsibility can conflict with the need for comprehensive climate action. These ideologies are entrenched in our society, influencing public opinion and policy. It creates a challenging environment for acknowledging the full scope of the climate crisis and taking the necessary collective action. Moreover, the global nature of the problem adds another layer of complexity, as it requires unprecedented international cooperation and agreement on responsibility and action, often complicated by differing economic and developmental statuses of nations. The stats of per capita vs not per capita vs other nuanced metrics add another layer over the truth. It takes people a lot of work to realize the differences in the stats and really do their research to understand if they're being lied to or not.