Climate disruption: the 10 percent doctrine?

Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate Center, Washington, DC

What do the odds of a catastrophe have to be for insurance to be a wise investment? Apparently extremely low for a father or mother buying life insurance. For example, the probability of dying at age 35 is 0.1 percent. The odds of both parents dying are exponentially smaller. Yet, against these probabilities, parents routinely spend thousands of dollars on this insurance.

Why, then, haven't we made aggressive investments in climate protection, when the odds of a catastrophe and the number of lives at stake appear to be far larger? One prominent climate economics model (more below) estimates a 10 percent chance of catastrophe if global temperatures increase more than 2°C above preindustrial levels, yet the world's lack of serious mitigation efforts is putting the world on track for 3.6°C to 5.3°C (p. 9).

In a recent PBS column, reporter Paul Solman asked one very prominent economist to speculate on this dilemma. Martin Weitzman, economics professor at Harvard (and formerly Yale and MIT), presented the economics of uncertainty in no uncertain terms:

• [W]e are undertaking a colossal planet-wide experiment of injecting CO2 into the atmosphere that goes extraordinarily further and faster than anything within the range of natural CO2 fluctuations for tens of millions of years...[I]n this kind of situation, for an economist, abating CO2 emissions is like buying insurance against a catastrophe...The bottom line is that if we continue on a business-as-usual trajectory, then there is some non-trivial probability of a catastrophic climate outcome materializing at some future time.... If we don't start buying into this insurance policy soon, the human race could end up being very sorry should a future climate catastrophe rear its ugly head.

These are strong words for an economist: the famous joke about economists is that you will never find a one-handed one (on the one hand...).

The model I referred to above is one of the most popular ones used in the economics literature and by policy makers: PAGE (Policy Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect, developed by Chris Hope at the University of Cambridge and used by, among others, the UK and the US to estimate the benefits of emissions reduction policies).

PAGE's assumptions are based upon the overwhelming scientific consensus that an increase above 2°C puts the climate at risk of reaching a "tipping point," where irreversible catastrophic damages could unfold. Corresponding to the 2°C mark is an atmospheric CO2 concentration level of 450 ppm. PAGE assumes an increasingly higher chance of a catastrophic event the larger the temperature increase and, associated with these rises, increasingly higher economic damages.

Of course, passing 450 ppm doesn't mean there will be a catastrophe. We can only know that the risk increases the more CO2 exceeds that level. But the business-as-usual scenario is of no comfort. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented a range of approximately 550 to 1000 ppm by 2100; by 2010, CO2 emissions reached levels consistent with the higher end projections. To put this in context, consider the projections relative to historical fluctuations:

FIGURE DESCRIPTION: The horizontal axis goes back in time starting at 0 at the right end, which is the present, going back 600,000 years, from two different ice core records (EPICA and Vostok). The small red bar at the side on the right vertical axis indicates the increase in CO2 concentrations between 1958 and 2007. On this time scale, the 50 years of measurements span less than the thickness of the line, so it appears vertical, as do projections to 2100 (the six arrows above the 2007 mark).

Any rational person should find this graph alarming: pre-industrial levels were around 300 ppm or less, and the natural range between ice ages and warm periods like ours is about 100 ppm. This year, we blew past a milestone of 400 ppm and, if we do nothing, risk reaching 1,000 ppm. For Weitzman, the huge uncertainties associated with this experiment don't preclude a certain policy choice:

• Admittedly, almost all of the relevant probabilities in this kind of rough analysis are uncomfortably indeterminate. But that is the nature of the beast here and shouldn't be an excuse for inaction...Prudence would seem to dictate taking action to cut back greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

Weitzman's reasoning is not unlike the famous wager proposed by the 16th century Catholic French philosopher Blaise Pascal, which goes something like this: "Given the possibility that God actually does exist, and the infinite loss associated with non-belief (eternal damnation), a rational person should live as though God exists. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.). An infinite cost times even a tiny probability is still ... an infinite cost."[1]

Replace "God" with "catastrophic climate risk" in the previous paragraph.

Another analogy is the famous "One Percent Doctrine," coined from Dick Cheney's assessment of the risks of terrorism:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

One might dismiss Cheney's assessment on grounds that they disagree with his anti-terrorism policies, but his statement reflects the nation's longstanding approach to national security-we spend a huge amount of resources against unknown risks. Every year, the US military budget is well over $600 billion dollars.

One percent is a small number, but if that is the risk of a catastrophe it makes sense to invest a great deal to prevent it. A ten percent risk of catastrophe is unacceptable. Yet, by one estimate, the Federal government spent only $25 billion on low-emission technologies in 2010 (excluding short-term stimulus).

Instead, we should be taking aggressive actions, like those outlined by the International Energy Agency, to prevent CO2 from exceeding 450 ppm. Time is running out fast: anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, producing a "lock-in" effect that will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change. If we don't stop locking in high carbon emissions within the next five years the results are likely to be disastrous.

---

[1] This paraphrase is adapted from Solman's piece and Wikipedia's description.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/climate_disruption_the_10_p

New York lays out $20 billion plan to adapt to climate change

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday announced a $20 billion plan to prepare for rising sea levels and hotter summers expected as a result of climate change in the coming decades.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-climate-newyork-plan-idUS

What Happens in the Arctic Unfortunately Is Not Staying in the Arctic

Chuck Clusen, Director, National Parks and Alaska Projects, Washington, DC

What Happens in the Arctic Unfortunately Is Not Staying in the Arctic:

The Arctic Ice Pack May Be as Important to Us People as to the Polar Bears. Its Melting Must Be Brought Under Control. Oil and Gas Activities Contribute to Arctic Amplification by Spewing Black Carbon (soot) and Releasing Methane As Well Add to the Oil We Burn.

Polar bears swim for long distances between melting blocks of park ice.

It is widely known the Arctic is warming more rapidly than any other place on Earth-more than twice as fast. This is occurring due in significant part to what is called "Arctic amplification." This is when solar radiation is absorbed to a greater degree by melted open water, or land that has prematurely lost its seasonal snow cover, than the solar absorption rate of ice and snow. As the Arctic warms, the temperature differential between the Arctic climate zone and the temperate climate zone decreases. This effect has a tendency to push the jet stream north. Yet, Arctic warming is not uniform geographically or temporally, resulting in Arctic cold fronts moving south. These cold fronts can push the jet stream back south, but not necessarily uniformly, creating a north-south wave in the jet stream.

As reported in the March 2013 edition of Oceanography: The Offical Magazine of the Oceanography Society, in an article written by Professor Jennifer A. Frances of Rutgers University; Charles H. Greene, a program director at Cornell University; and Bruce C. Monger, a senior research associate at Cornell University, the warming of the Arctic may have had a lot to do with the trajectory of Superstorm Sandy.

While Sandy started out as a relatively normal late-season hurricane, it markedly changed as it moved north. An extra-tropical cyclone merged with Sandy due to a cold front from the Arctic moving down the Mississippi Valley, pushing a southerly wave in the jet stream. Simultaneously, the ocean waters under Sandy stayed unusually warm for that time of year and, most importantly, a strong high-pressure blocking pattern over Greenland tucked into the jet stream loop going back north. This high-pressure system prevented Sandy from steering northeast and out to sea as October hurricanes normally track. With no way for Sandy to go north or east, it made a very sharp turn west, hitting the densest populated portion of the eastern seacoast.

In recorded weather history there is no prior record of such storm behavior. As Sandy moved west it combined with the other extra-tropical cyclone which had turned into an early winter nor'easter. The new combined storm became huge and ferocious. The storm exhibited record-low atmospheric pressure and the unusual strong high-pressure block to the north created a huge area of violent east winds that pushed water up onto the eastern coastline, from New Jersey to Nova Scotia. We all know the devestation Superstorm Sandy left in its wake.

Storm damage from Superstorm Sandy.

Scientists believe that the movement of the jet stream north, the larger amplitude meanders of the jet stream, the more frequent Arctic cold mass invasions into the middle latitudes, and the more frequent blocking events that forced Sandy west rather than follow the traditional storm tracks northeast, are all new phenomenon. If these events become common, anyone who lives in the temperate zone may have to contend with more devastating storms like Sandy..

Much of the material for this blog was taken from an article published in Oceanography: Green, C.H., J.A. Francis, B.C. Monger. 2013 Superstorm Sandy: A series of unfortunate events? Oceanography 26(1):8-9, http:dx.doi.orgt/10.5670/oceanog.2013.11. Also, an analysis by Jennifer Francis, "Linking Weird Weather to Rapid Warming of the Arctic", posted on 05 March 2012 in Business & Innovation Climate Science & Technology Sustainability Water Antarctica and the Arctic Asia North America was used.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cclusen/what_happens_in_the_arctic_u

Monitor your world with $39 Motes sensors

Wimoto's Motes Indiegogo project wants to put small environmental sensors into the hands of anyone with a smartphone. [Read more]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57588098-1/monitor-your-world-with

Al Gore: The information explosion is a tool to help solve the climate crisis

The digital revolution and the explosion of data are powerful tools that can help solve the climate crisis, said Vice President Al Gore at Google's 'How Green is the Internet?' on Thursday. In Gore's talk he applauded the leadership roles that tech companies like Google, Apple and Microsoft have been taking around energy, clean power, and sustainability.

The event is Google's third that focuses on the energy of Internet, and Google told me it's assembled the small group to discuss the environmental effects and benefits of the Internet. It's a complex question. For example, while data centers consume a lot of power to run the Internet, e-commerce on average uses less energy than brick-and-mortar retail shopping because of the reduction of the driving of the shopper.

There's a lot more questions than there are answers, pointed out Google's Senior VP, Technical Infrastructure, Urs Hoelzle in his introduction for Gore. If we can focus on asking the right questions, we can empower significant research in this area, said Hoelzle. For more information on the current research available, check out the papers that Google amassed for the event.

Green data center expert Jonathan Koomey, who spoke right after Gore, also emphasized the need for more data around energy and the Internet. We need data on electricity use and potential savings, we need network devices that automatically do this type of reporting and we need more case studies, said Koomey. But overall, said Koomey, the focus on the electricity use of the Internet is misplaced; the energy savings benefits of things like smart systems, dematerialization (replacing atoms with bits) and IT-related efficiency could potentially be much more powerful than the direct energy used by the Internet.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The importance of social for greentech
• Flash analysis: the Fisker debacle and its implications on investing, innovation, and government incentives
• Building energy management systems: overview and forecast

http://gigaom.com/2013/06/06/al-gore-the-information-explosion-is-a-to

Here's Why The U.S. Is Morally Obligated To Act On Climate Change

Credit: Citizens Campaign for the Environment

Internationally, the big hurdle to fighting climate change and global warming is figuring out a fair way to divvy up responsibility. Serious efforts to curb carbon emissions will require considerable upfront investment, so who should make those investments and how much? That impasse then influences domestic political reluctance in the United States. If the rest of the world isn't moving, why should we?

Earlier this week, Bloomberg flagged work by the Stockholm Environment Institute and others to nail down answers to those questions with hard numbers. Their conclusion?

As of now, the United States bears fully one third of the burden to reduce global carbon emissions, with much of Europe shouldering nearly another third. It's a bracing conclusion. The latest analysis suggests the per-unit social and economic damage from carbon emissions due to global warming is as much as twice what we thought. Several countries with much more modest obligations than America's have already moved to price carbon, leaving the U.S. sticking out like a sore thumb. Even China is tip-toeing up to it.

Much of the researchers' work comes from the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework. First, they set a global threshold for living standards, below which people are considered free from the responsibility to sacrifice in the fight against climate change. They came up with $7,500 a year in dollars (adjusted for purchasing power parity) - it's the living standard at which malnutrition, infant mortality, low education, and other problems of poverty begin to fade, plus a bit of breathing room. Even then, about 70 percent of the globe lives at or below this level, and taken all together is responsible for only 15 percent of the cumulative global emissions.

Capacity to invest in climate mitigation and adaptation was then defined as all income per person falling above that threshold. As you can see below, the United States' capacity swamps that of both India and China, despite the much larger populations of the latter two countries:

Source: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

The researchers then tried to quantify responsibility for climate change by accounting for cumulative emissions since 1990, and all projected emissions going forward, while excluding all emissions associated with income below the threshold. Putting it all together, they calculated the "responsibility and capacity indicator" (RCI) for each country. In other words: everyone's fair share of the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions enough to keep the planet's climate under two degrees Celsius of warming.

The result? The United States has 33.1 percent of the global RCI in 2010, dropping to 25.5 percent in 2030. The European Union has 25.7 percent in 2010 and 19.6 percent in 2030. Thanks to its economic growth, China does jump from 5.5 percent in 2010 to 15.2 percent in 2030. But no other country even cracks 8 percent, or changes much over that period.

Source: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework

This shouldn't be surprising. Other data suggests the U.S. can claim a third of the world's carbon dioxide emissions since the mid-1800s, and our per capita emissions top nearly every other nation. We're also the most economically developed nation without a price on carbon, meaning we implicitly subsidize fossil fuel use far more than anyone else.

In fact, the paper notes that even if the advanced countries get their carbon emissions down to practically zero by 2050, the two degree target doesn't give the poor and developing countries much room to work with. That matters, because reducing poverty requires reducing energy poverty, and reducing energy poverty usually means increased carbon emissions. It's possibly the key paradox of human advancement - the world is creeping up on an astonishing reduction in global poverty, even as our greenhouse gas emissions keep driving us towards likely climate and ecological catastrophe. It's what led the International Energy Agency and the World Bank to note that tackling energy poverty and climate change at the same time is going to have a hefty global price tag.

Here in America and the developed west, meanwhile, we've basically got the problem of deep poverty licked. Given the position of extraordinary economic privilege we enjoy in the global order, it's right that the lion's share of the climate change burden falls to us. To that end, the paper suggests establishing an international fund to invest in global climate change mitigation and adaptation, with countries contributing in accordance with their RCI share. Or just use the RCI proportions to calculate direct emission reduction targets for each country.

But it's not grim self-sacrifice. The insurance bill the U.S. is paying for extreme weather disasters - increasing thanks to climate change - far outpaces that of any other country, meaning reducing global warming is in our quantifiable financial self-interest. We also need jobs, and specifically jobs that pay well but are accessible to less educated Americans, in order to avoid falling into an economy with just an upper and lower class, but no middle class. Research suggests renewable energy produces more jobs per unit of energy generated than the fossil fuel industries, green jobs are both more accessible to less educated Americans than all jobs as a whole, and their more likely to involve manufacturing. Finally, if we 're exporting renewable technology to China and the world, rather than importing it when they develop it first, we'll help close our trade deficit and improve the government's finances.

But self-interest aside, at the end of the day there's no escaping the simple morality of the matter. As President Obama pointed out at a prayer breakfast in 2012, quoting Luke 12:48, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." He was talking about justly distributing the burden of deficit reduction, but the point applies to carbon reduction just as much.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/06/2110951/us-obligated-clima

Methane Leaks Could Negate Climate Benefits of US Natural Gas Boom: Report

Reduction in carbon emissions triggered by America's shift from coal to gas is being offset by a sharp rise in methane.

wcn247/Flickr

Methane leaks could undo the climate change benefits of America's natural gas boom, a new report said on Tuesday.

The report, produced by the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), said America's shift from coal to gas had produced important climate gains.

Carbon dioxide emissions fell last year to their lowest point since 1994, according to the Department of Energy. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 12% below 2005 levels.

But the report said those reductions were not enough, on their own, to escape the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.

To keep reading, click here.

http://climatedesk.org/2013/06/methane-leaks-could-negate-climate-bene