The New Age from Australia published this article recently on the perceived link between rural residents, climate change and agriculture. The findings are fairly disturbing, especially in light of the fact that Australia recently ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
The article states that up to 40% of the people surveyed didn't believe that the current 12 year drought had any relationship to changes in the climate, essentially choosing to believe that this was just a natural cycle which would eventually run its course. This belief is in someways dangerous, whether you accept that climate change is caused by human activity or not. But maybe they are right maybe this is a natural cycle that will run its course. But the belief is still dangerous. Because the climate is changing.
One thing that can be certain is that to survive change we have to adapt. Our current efforts at mitigation have thus far proved to be inadequate. So maybe its time to place as much emphasis on adaption as we have been on mitigation. One thing about humans is that they have shown over the years that they are nothing if not adaptable.
11 comments:
The CIRM team at IFMR has some interesting data on the frequency of climate events in Bihar -- I am not sure about the causal linkages but there is a definite change in the frequency and the severity of the events in Bihar -- they are recommending that the Government of Bihar buy catastrophe insurance products so that they could (a) minimise total losses and (b)improve cash-transfer response times during emergencies.
I'm not sure whether low public perception in rural Australia regarding climate change can be called "dangerous" as you put it.
Public perception of climate change or lack of it, is largely the result of mainstream media's (sloppy) handling of this issue. While it's a cause of concern and should change, it's unfair to blame people for it. What is actually disturbing is the absence of a strong response from the leadership.
It's also worth noting that...
a) the scenario is not as bad as the article paints it. If you read the actual study, a good 36% respondents were in the 'yes, it is happening' category while only 11% said 'no, it isn't.' The quoted 40% were from 'probably, but not sure' and 'yes, but not here' categories.
b) The climate in rural Australia has always been highly variable and erratic, so it's natural that people would assume the current drought to be a cyclical phenomenon too.
c) The link between climate change and drought in Australia has only been recently established. It was only 10 days some scientists said that the drought might not end soon.
Adaptation vs mitigation
You cannot adapt to runaway climate change. Although adaptation is necessary in the short term, after a certain point, there's really fairly little humans can do to adapt to what scientists call abrupt climate change. Mitigation is where we should focus right now when the costs are low and while we still have time.
Manu,
Thanks for your thoughts...but by continuing to focus on mitigation, we are still taking a short-term approach to climate change. Mitigation is a stop-gap measure until it has universal participation. Since there we are still lacking in universal participation...you can't really believe that mitigation efforts to lower GHG emissions by 6% of the parties which have ratified Kyoto is really going to slow down human contributions to Climate Change...
As for the comment that the situation is not as dangerous as you say, when 64% of individuals are reluctant to admit that climate change is a problem for their livelihood...in my opinion...that constitutes dangerous.
And time as you put it may not be available to us, mitigation efforts have proven to be marginally beneficial at best and now even business is starting to accept that adaptation can be big business...
Adaptation and Mitigation are not mutually exclusive. Adaption is as simple as using technology to mitigate some effect (think putting on a jacket to ward off the cold). My point is that there is no one size fits all solution…as my grandmother always said “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”.
Hello 'Engage Carbon' - I hope you're familiar with the definition of dangerous climate change and the concept of runaway climate change caused by positive feedback loops.
We need to focus on mitigation more than adaptation because once we cross the threshold of dangerous climate change (2 deg C of temp rise), we may get into runaway (irreversible) changes which will keep getting worse and worse due to positive feedback loops built into the environment. At that stage nothing we do will matter. So forget about adaptation, survival will become a challenge.
To give you a sense, I'm pasting below an excerpt from transcript of a BBC documentary on Global Dimming - a phenomenon caused by pollution - which has been saving us from the true effects of Global Warming. The science behind this (2005) documentary was recently updated so it's not very accurate but it will give you a sense of what I'm talking about.
_______________
DR PETER COX: If we don't do anything by about twenty thirty we could have a global warming of exceeding two degrees, and at that point it's believed the Greenland ice sheet would start to melt in a way that you wouldn't be able to stop it once it started it, it would melt. Take a long time to melt but ultimately it would lead to a sea level rise of seven or eight metres.
NARRATOR: Once the Greenland ice cap begins to melt, nothing will stop it. Many of the world's major cities will be living on borrowed time. Decade by decade, the risk of catastrophic flooding would increase inexorably. But unless action is taken it won't stop there. Because after Greenland, the world's tropical rainforests will start to wither in the heat.
DR PETER COX: 2040 it could be four degrees warmer, the climate change could have led to big drying particularly in the Amazon Basin, that would make the forest unsustainable, we'd expect the forest to catch fire probably, turn into savannah and maybe ultimately even desert if it gets really really dry as our model suggests.
NARRATOR: And as the rainforest burnt away, it would release vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, driving global warming still further. Cox calculates that in just a century, the world could be 10 degrees hotter, a warming more rapid than any in Earth history. If this were to happen, the landscape of England would be utterly transformed.
DR PETER COX: We're talking about a change from er a lush, moist climate, environment like this, to a North African climate in just a few decades or a hundred years.
NARRATOR: Most British plant species could not survive a North African climate. With vegetation dying everywhere, soil erosion would become a severe problem. From a green and pleasant land, England would become a country of extremes, with winter flooding giving way to summer dust storms. And it will be far worse elsewhere.
DR PETER COX: You can imagine ten degree warming in the UK in a hundred years is catastrophic. Ten degree warming in a hot country already makes it essentially uninhabitable.
NARRATOR: And just when one might think things could get no worse in the far North a ten degree warming might be enough to release a vast natural store of greenhouse gas bigger than all the oil and coal reserves of the planet.
DR PETER COX: We will be in danger of destabilising these things called methane hydrates which store a lot of methane at the bottom of the ocean in a kind of frozen form, ten thousand billions tons of this stuff, and they're known to be destabilised by warming.
NARRATOR: At this point, whatever we did to curb our emissions, it would be too late. Ten thousand billion tons of methane, a greenhouse gas eight times stronger than carbon dioxide, would be released into the atmosphere. The Earth's climate would be spinning out of control, heading towards temperatures unseen in four billion years. But this is not a prediction - it is a warning. It is what will happen if we clean up pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases.
_________________
Second, the denial of climate change by people of rural Australia or citizens of any part of the world is not "dangerous" because any meaningful changes in emission reductions would have to come from policy decisions. It's widely acknowledged that changes in personal lifestyle will not contribute to much. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I only wish to emphasise the *scale* of this problem.
Finally, when I said mitigation, I'm referring to dramatic reductions in emissions that are needed in the coming decades (in the order of 80-100%) and not those required by Kyoto which in any case is phasing out by 2012.
Manu,
Glad to have found someone who is open to lively debate and actually reads my posts...So to continue the debate here is my rebuttal...
Meinrat Andreae was one of the first to point out the fact that aerosol pollutants were both a force for and against global warming. As early as 2000 scientists were talking about pollutants reflecting heat back into the atmosphere and speculated that this was why the temperature only rose 1 degree as opposed to the expected 2 degree rise from the early modeling efforts of scientists.
I actually considered these points when I placed the post, I have seen the documentary and read other reports dating back to the late '90s. I lived in West Africa and had the opportunity to see desertification first hand, talk to the elders in the villages along the Niger River about changes they have experienced in their life times. They have had no choice but to adapt or perish, yet even adaptation hasn't been enough, so I will concede...with reservations.
There is no doubt that mitigation has to happen on a large scale, and as you pointed out policy has to play a big role in the solution. Unfortunately, agriculture is a large contributor to the problem (by some estimates up to 33%). Second unfortunately, most governments pander to the agricultural sector by providing subsidies and passing 'special bills' that provide free electricity to farmers, lower diesel prices, etc. Third unfortunately, there are few policy makers who are going to force life-style changes on those who elect them. As I mentioned in a previous post, the leaders of this problem have been conspicuously absent in politics. They are too busy trying to get reelected.
Now don't get me wrong, there have been a few brave souls who have been trying to influence policy, but most are no longer actual policy makers. Influencial sure, but no longer subject to the whims of the electorate (Al Gore and Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but never sent it to the Senate for ratification). And yes Australia made a huge step by ousting John Howard in the last election. Unfortunately the US was not as smart in 2004 and are now the massive laggard and the least able to point fingers (although they will continue to do so).
But the fact still remains that the problem, while not unstoppable (yet), will get worse before it gets better. If farmers refuse to participate in some form of adaptation the world will face significant issues in the ability to feed itself. I am totally against GMOs but they may be a necessary evil in the coming decades.
Adaptation as I said was not a stop gap measure in itself, no more than mitigation is a stop gap measure. But adaptation will be as necessary as mitigation or it really won't matter. As the documentary said, native species will no longer be appropriate in a worst or mid-case scenario. Meaning that nations will no longer be able to feed themselves using the same techniques and species that are used today.
So I still contend that the fact that 64% of a group which has a significant influence on the policy makers of almost every nation in the world, being uncertain of the effects of Global Warming on their current situation is a dangerous place to be, especially as 2012 is only 3.5 years way. (Yeah, I realize that I am taking an isolated study of a specific group of individuals and extrapolating it to the international level, but my feeling is that the US would have a similar response from its farmers).
But as I said before I do enjoy the lively debate and the viewpoint you provide in your comments, even if you do point out the doom and gloom of the situation.
I'll leave off on one more comment...people need hope. Whether that hope is real or not, people still need it. And they need to feel like they can do something about the problem. Just think of the guy up on his roof with a garden hose trying to save it from the fire raging around him. Sure what he really needs is a fire hose and 1000s of pounds of pressure rather than 125 psi that a garden hose offers. But at least he feels like he is doing something. (http://geekalicio.us/2007/10/22/california-wildfires-imagery-pics/)
While waiting for the policy makers to get their act together, people need to feel like they are doing something, if only getting ready for the future. This is where adaptation will fit in with the solution.
Take care,
Tim
Hello Tim -- thanks for expanding on your views and explaining why you thought Farmers' denial was a specific problem. This wasn't clear in your post and subsequent reply. Completely agree that agriculture is a big part of the problem but again as you acknowledge, government subsidies play an important role.
The fundamental problem I have with adaptation is that it encourages the belief that we can deal with this problem tomorrow. That we can somehow adapt using technology and save ourselves from the effects of climate change. I'm certain you'll agree that it's a very dangerous notion.
I also completely agree that people need hope. This has come out in research too, if we bombard people with messages of alarm it leads to apathy. But I would continue to insist that my message is not of doom and gloom.
It's of concern because I see no signs of meaningful change either in the government or industry while I continue to come across examples of climate change that were not expected to happen until the end of the century. I can guarantee you that going ahead with business as usual is a certain way to meet with our doom.
That said, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to spread the word and ensure action is taken in time. I'm doing my bit but the challenge is enormous and it's important to point out that we're suffering from a fatal disease. After all, how do you make people of a society undergo chemotherapy without without telling them it has cancer?
Manu,
Point well taken and one I hadn't considered in the way you put it. I can see how my use of the word adaptation can be misleading.
I make the mistake of assuming that everyone can read my mind and draw the same conclusions that I do. Adaptation in my mind isn't something that we do tomorrow, it is a process that starts today. For me, adaptation is anything from a switch in the current energy mix to one that composes a greater percentage of renewable energy to the smallest reduction an individual can make. When I think adaptation I think of incremental changes which eventually lead to significant contributions. I see an important role in this because once the electorate's mindset starts to change, the policy will follow. People have to give policy makers the permission to make the unpopular decisions.
Tim, I'm afraid you have your definitions mixed up.
You said: "adaptation is anything from a switch in the current energy mix to one that composes a greater percentage of renewable energy to the smallest reduction an individual can make."
You're defining mitigation here. Wikipedia which references IPCC glossary, defines Mitigation as:
"taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance sinks aimed at reducing the extent of global warming."
Adaptation on the other hand is about actions taken to "minimize the effects of global warming." Measures such as "construction of flood walls to protect property from stronger storms and heavier precipitation,
or the planting of agricultural crops and trees more suited to warmer temperatures."
In simple terms mitigation is about minimising cause of global warming while adaptation is minimising its effects.
The loss data of floods in Bihar over the past 20 years is shown below:
Years Losses (in Rs.Lakhs)
1987 94384.43
1988 5348.49
1989 949.66
1990 2163.97
1991 3119.88
1992 75.73
1993 25811.71
1994 6277.79
1995 29216.48
1996 9706.93
1997 10842.53
1998 51515.35
1999 35012.4
2000 33026.27
2001 62445.71
2002 144715.82
2003 9345.35
2004 231151.61
2005 1857.64
2006 10387.93
2007 233817
This does show a clear trend of increasing frequency and severity in the losses due to floods. Insurance is one option that the Government needs to look at as an ex-ante mechanisms to overcome financial losses issue during severe catastrophes.
But there are some caveats before we reach at any conclusions regarding severity and frequency. Though the losses seem to be high on certain years, the floods might not have been severe. In those cases the losses might have been high due to softer issues like building embankments at strategically wrong locations. This is one case where the risk mitigation mechanism itself becomes a means of increasing the severity of a risk event. This problem is because building of embankments involves huge money and a certain amount of vested interest lies in building more embankments and embankments in any area rather than building embankments in the right areas.
A better dataset to determine whether the floods have been getting severe or not would be official estimates of number of villages inundated or families displaced. And an much more credible source would be analysis of satellite imagery from the time of floods over the years.
But 20 years is a relatively short period to say anything with certainty. I doubt if a climate scientist would approve of making conclusions from such a short period.
Just some thoughts. Signing off from this thread now. =)
Mitigation and adaptation are clearly two important concepts. I've found a third, perhaps an overarching one, recently in the notion of triage. If we take a triage approach (as discussed in the forums of www.climatechangetriage.net for isntance) then we can identify the most valuable approach to vest our money in, be it adaptation or mitigation - or perhaps some other strategy that will help us ameliorate those adverse climate effects that have been identified.
Post a Comment