Either by action, or by inaction, it's most likely that the climate decision will be made this year.
The decision, simply put, is whether to step aside from business-as-usual, and fully mobilize, or to generally continue business as usual, and condemn humanity to a thousand years of torture.
The decisiveness of this particular historical moment is highlighted by an important new paper in Nature (with the classically obscure name, Probabilistic Cost Estimates for Climate Change Mitigation) which finds first, that when we start serious change is the most important factor in limiting the damage from climate change, and second, that we have to start serious change now, with policy shifts comparable to an international carbon price of $60 a tonne by 2015, to, essentially, save the day.
The study further finds that if we wait until 2020 to make our pivot to serious change, the effort would have to be equivalent to an international carbon price of $150 per tonne.
If we wait until 2025, then there's no realistic level of effort modeled by the researchers that would have a reasonable likelihood of preventing devastating (and multiplying) impacts.
"The authors quantify the importance of five 'uncertainties' that are thought to influence the chance of limiting global temperatures to different levels, using a suite of models to generate around 500 scenario variations. They find that the timing of international action to limit emissions has by far the largest impact. Furthermore, the models show that the impact of timing is highly nonlinear, and that delaying emissions limits by only five years, from 2020 to 2025, would dramatically cut the likelihood of limiting warming to 2°C.
"The five major uncertainties assessed by Rogelj and colleagues were the following: the responsiveness of the physical climate system to cumulative emissions; the deployment of energy- and land-based emission-reduction technologies; the global demand for energy (which includes combined uncertainties about population, income growth and energy efficiency); the global carbon price that the international community is willing to impose; and the timing of substantive action to limit emissions (phased in from 2010)...
"These scenario comparisons revealed timing of global action to be the uncertainty with the greatest effect. For example, the authors find that bringing forward global action on emissions from 2020 to 2015 would improve the chance of limiting temperatures to 2°C from 56% to 60%, all else being equal. To put this another way, achieving the same 60% chance of success with action starting in 2020 would require a 2020 carbon price of around US$150 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) — more than double the $60 per tonne CO2e required if action begins in 2015. However, delaying emissions limits from 2020 to 2025 would bring the chance of success down to 34%, and the authors found no scenario in which a feasible increase in carbon price or improvements in energy technology could make up for these five years of delay."
These findings are entirely consistent with the overall thrust of the latest strong climate research.
"'Human-induced climate change means much more than just hotter weather,' the report says, listing rising-seas, downpours, melting glaciers and permafrost, and worsening storms. 'These changes and other climatic changes have affected and will continue to affect human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy, and many other aspects of society.'
"The report uses the word "threat" or variations of it 198 times and versions of the word "disrupt" another 120 times.
"If someone were to list every aspect of life changed or likely to be altered from global warming, it would easily be more than 100, said two of the report's authors."
"The Assessment, put together by dozens of the country’s top climate experts, makes clear that if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we are headed towards a devastating 9°F to 15°F warming over most of the United States (this century), with ever-worsening extreme weather, heat waves, deluges and droughts. As the report notes ‘generally, wet [areas] get wetter and dry get drier.’ Future generations will be wishing for the boring ‘moist’ and ‘cool’ days of 2012 (when they aren’t cursing our names)."
The report is a big deal. It is destined, with revisions, to become the "Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) Report," to be published perhaps in 2014. The two previous national climate assessments were published in 2000 and 2009.
This, therefore, is the round of climate assessment and documentation, from the current draft NCA onward, that will be a primary official reference for the immediate critical period — during this period, in which which we will determine the general feasibility of civilization for our children and grandchildren.
Missing the Big Boat
The draft NCADAC report clearly recognizes the basic fact that mitigation (the net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (adjusting infrastructure and systems to avoid damage from climate change) are directly connected:
"This 'systems approach' tries to connect, for example, how adaptation and mitigation strategies are themselves dynamic and interrelated systems that intersect with the sectors described here, like the way adaptation plans for future coastal infrastructure are correlated to the kinds of mitigation strategies that are put into place today."
— Draft NCA p105, Introduction to the Sectors
However, based on an initial review, the mitigation and sector-specific chapters of the draft report — where the rubber hits the road — are badly substandard — lost inside the box of business-as-usual — compared to the excellent and more mature climate science section.
The President's science advisor, John Holdren, writes that the report "does not make recommendations regarding actions that might be taken in response to climate change."
Yet, given that mitigation, adaptation, and impacts are "themselves dynamic and interrelated systems," what kind of relevance can the sector analysis provide without addressing mitigation?
What kind of relevance can the mitigation chapter have, relative to the needs of the nation in 2013, if it doesn't define specific strategies to meet specific scenarios? If the concept of climate wedges, for instance, is not even discussed in the abstract?
At this stage of draft, hundreds of contributing authors and the 60-person NCADAC advisory committee, considered as a team (whatever their individual perspectives) appear to be still keeping their heads buried in the sand with regard to what has to be done.
If we're in 2013, pretending to add up potential damages due to climate change as if industrial business-as-usual can actually continue indefinitely — as if, for example, an issue to be concerned about is a shortened Arctic oil drilling season due to melting permafrost — well, I guess we really have our work cut out.
If the draft report acknowledged the technical reality that there is now in effect a fixed budget of CO2e that can be put into Earth's atmosphere — a fixed total carbon budget with a size somewhere in the range of half to one-fifth of the stated reserves of the top 100 fossil fuel companies — then perhaps with a little "systems thinking" it could determine that obstacles to oil and gas drilling, which has to be stopped anyway, are not in themselves a big cause of concern.
Granted, to say that we're actually going to leave 50%-80% of already-known reserves in the ground is probably one of those dreaded "policy issues," at times considered off-limits to the rank and file of federal science and bureaucracy.
However, in 2013, to simply say that we have to leave 50%-80% of already-known reserves in the ground, in order to have a reasonable chance of stabilizing the global climate at a survivable level, is not policy. In 2013, this is simply science.
If the U.S. "Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) Report" doesn't define what we need to do technically, in order to meet reasonable potential policy goals, then what federal project will?
At the same time as the draft NCADAC report shows stunningly how bad things will get if we don't act, it seems to embody the very institutional blinders that tend to prevent us from acting.
If not us, then who?
Global greenhouse gas emissions need to be permanently shrinking by 2015 or 2016, and then drop by about 5% per year, every year, for the next forty years or more.
The global shift we need, away from fossil-fueled growth-as-usual, will not happen without the leadership of decisive action within the U.S.
It takes real time to turn the ship of state, to first make concrete policy projections, to turn policy projections into policy proposals, to enact strong policies, and finally to implement them. If the U.S. somehow manages to decide in this critical year to mobilize effectively for change, then significant physical results can still show up, as permanently and substantially shrinking greenhouse gas emissions, just in time.
Activating local, state, and national elites in government, business, and media is absolutely critical to achieving this decisive change. With huge institutional inertia to overcome quickly, it will probably take everyone, who can help to make the case for change, each giving their own best push, to break things loose.
This means us — in our work as design professionals, and in our engagement as citizens. And this means now.
"Politics is Biggest Factor in Climate Uncertainty," Zoë Corbyn, Nature, 2013.0102.
"Swift action by politicians is the single most important factor in limiting global warming, an analysis finds. The costs of political delays outweigh any possible benefits of waiting for more research into the mechanisms of climate change."
Gathering crisis notwithstanding, a new study from Media Matters, discussed at Climate Progress, found that coverage of climate change on Sunday talk shows dropped to a four-year low in 2012, plummeting to a total of eight minutes from over 60 minutes in 2009. ArchitectureWeek is committed to continuing coverage of the defining built-environment issue of our times. Image: Media Matters
The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) projects ongoing increases in U.S. domestic liquid fuels production, at a time when reductions in fossil fuel extraction are essential to both economic and ecological survival. It is vitally important to build a different outcome. Image: EIA
The forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) that there will be little change in U.S. consumption of fossil fuel liquids over the next two years represents business-as-usual continuing unabated. Image: EIA
In this graph of U.S. average temperature projections, the solid red line represents temperatures increasing by more than 10°F within current lifetimes, following a "high emissions scenario" pathway — which business-as-usual is currently exceeding. The solid green line represents temperatures following a moderate low emissions pathway, which we could still improve upon with bold action. (The dashed lines represent previous, now-outdated projections.) (Draft NAC p20) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
This graph shows a fairly conservative projection of average global sea level rise. Sea level rise along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. is projected to be higher than the global average. (Draft NAC p21) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
Large areas of the U.S. would see average temperatures from 10°F to 15°F warmer, according to recent projections of U.S. temperatures following a "high emissions scenario" pathway — which current business-as-usual is currently exceeding (on the right). More manageable temperate increases are projected under a moderate low emissions scenario (on the left). (Projections show change in average surface air temperature in the later part of this century (2071-2099) relative to the late part of the last century (1971-2000).) (Draft NAC p38-29) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
Projected numbers of summer days per year (regional averages) with temperatures greater than 100°F will roughly triple or more under a high-emissions, near-business-as-usual scenario (A2). Historical data are for 1971-2000 (farthest left bar in plots). Projections shown are 30-year averages centered on 2035, 2055, and 2085 (bars left to right). (Draft NAC p347) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
Projected percent change in seasonal precipitation for 2070-2099 (compared to the period 1901-1960) under an emissions scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions (A2). Teal indicates precipitation increases, and brown, decreases. Hatched areas indicate confidence that the projected changes are large and are consistently wetter or drier. White areas indicate confidence that the changes are small. Wet regions tend to become wetter while dry regions become drier. In general, the northern part of the U.S. is projected to see more winter and spring precipitation, while the Southwest is projected to experience less precipitation in the spring. (Draft NAC p44) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
This map shows percentage increases in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from 1958 to 2011 for each region. There are clear trends toward a greater amount of very heavy precipitation for the nation as a whole, and particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. (Draft NAC p50) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
Graph of the percentage area of the U.S. and Mexico in extreme drought, according to projections of the Palmer Drought Severity Index under a mid-range emissions scenario (SRES A1B), representing significant cuts in GHG emissions compared to business-as-usual. The red line is based on observed temperature and precipitation. The blue line, from the average of 19 different climate models, can be seen to seriously underrepresent historically observed severe drought events. The gray lines in the background are individual results from over 70 different simulations from these models. These results overall suggest substantially increasing drought over this century throughout most of the U.S. (Draft NAC p57) Image: Draft U.S. National Climate Assessment
Click on thumbnail images
to view full-size pictures.