Gwynn Dyer: Four truths about climate change we can't ignore

[GliderGuider]

Four truths about climate change we can't ignore

About two years ago, I realized that the militaries in various countries were starting to do climate change scenarios in-house -- scenarios that started with the scientific predictions about rising temperatures, falling crop yields and other physical effects -- and examine what that would do to politics and strategy.

The scenarios predicted failed states proliferating because governments couldn't feed their people; waves of climate refugees washing up against the borders of more fortunate countries; even wars between countries that shared the same rivers.

So I started interviewing everybody I could get access to. Not only senior military people, but scientists, diplomats and politicians.

About 70 interviews, a dozen countries and 18 months later, I have reached four conclusions that I didn't even suspect when I began the process. The first is simply this: The scientists are really scared. Their observations over the past two or three years suggest that everything is happening a lot faster than their climate models predicted.

The scientists are understandably reluctant at this point to announce publicly that their predictions were wrong; that it's really much worse and the targets will have to be revised. Most of them are waiting for overwhelming proof that climate change really is moving faster, even though they are already privately convinced that it is.

So governments, now awakened to the danger at last, are still working to the wrong emissions target. The real requirement, if we are to avoid runaway global warming, is probably 80 percent cuts by 2030, and almost no burning whatever of fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil) by 2050.

The second conclusion is that the generals are right. Food is the key issue, and world food supply is already very tight: We have eaten up about two-thirds of the world grain reserve in the past five years, leaving only 50 days' worth in store. Even a 1.8-degree rise in average global temperature will take a major bite out of food production in almost all the countries that are closer to the equator than to the poles, and that includes almost all of the planet's breadbaskets.

The third conclusion is that there is a point of no return after which warming becomes unstoppable -- and we are probably going to sail right through it. It is the point at which human-caused warming triggers huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases of both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both. Most climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 3.6 degrees hotter.

Once that point is passed, the human race loses control: Cutting our own emissions may not stop the warming. But we are almost certainly going to miss our deadline. We cannot get the 10 lost years back, and by the time a new global agreement to replace the Kyoto accord is negotiated and put into effect, there will probably not be enough time left to stop the warming short of the point where we must not go.

So -- final conclusion -- we will have to cheat. In the past two years, various scientists have suggested several "geo-engineering" techniques for holding the temperature down directly. We might put a kind of temporary chemical sunscreen in the stratosphere by seeding it with sulphur particles, for example, or we could artificially thicken low-lying maritime clouds to reflect more sunlight.

These are not permanent solutions; merely ways of winning more time to cut our emissions without triggering runaway warming in the meanwhile. But the situation is getting very grave, and we are probably going to see the first experiments with these techniques within five years.

There is a way through this crisis, but it isn't easy and there is no guarantee of success. As the Irishman said to the lost traveler: "If that's where you want to go, sir, I wouldn't start from here."

I'd hate to see Dyer's fourth conclusion tested, the risks are so bloody high. But from my understanding of human behaviour I fully expect it will be. I also think that Dyer is much too optimistic in his 15 to 20 year timeline. The critical period for this cycle of civilization is the decade from 2010 to 2020.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I've felt that there will be a massive die-off of people

in the next decade, and that those who are left will not have a pretty world in which to live.

[Bigmack]

2. What to do...

What to say???? We've a new grandchild - our ONLY grandchild. How we fear for her future. We've marched, written letters, sent emails, tried to simplify our life style.... We're not praying folks, but what the hell? Might as well. No "one's" listening, it won't change anything, but the act is quiet and peaceful.....Ms Bigmack

[quidam56]

3. Appalachia is turning into a toxic waste dump third world America

We can't stand anymore http://www.wisecountyissues.com of Presidebt Bush's and THE COAL INDUSTRIES prosperity.

[Citizen Number 9]

4. Of all the species,

humans have the ability to consciously determine their future, for better or for worse. You can argue all day long about whether they have that "right", but the fact remains, they have the ability. As time passes, there will, no doubt, be increasing numbers of people who become convinced that Global Warming is a serious problem and be willing to make lifestyle changes in order to address it.

For the time being there is a tug of war between those who are convinced enough to reallocate scarce resources and those who are afraid the changes will represent an obstacle to their material aspirations. As we have chosen a system in which the majority usually prevail, we have to keep on trying to make this threat as clear as we can.

Just hope enough citizens come to their better sense before we pass the point of no return, ecologically speaking.

[lutherj]

5. I wonder what an 80% emissions cut over the next two decades would actually look like.

What would be the human cost? Would it be ethical to make that choice, given that we can't know for certain whether such measures would be effective in averting a climate catastrophe?

[GliderGuider]

6. Would it be ethical NOT to make that choice?

Given that we know for certain that what we're doing is causing a climate catastrophe?

Ethics aside, we will not make the choice. People are too afraid of having to walk.

[Nihil]

7. The human cost will be far less if the reduction is planned.

Even if it isn't "effective in averting a climate catastrophe", it will
be moving the human communities towards a state where they will be more
able to survive the event. Taking no action now will simply guarantee a
much higher cost when the crunch starts to bite as people will not be
prepared, will not be capable of adapting that quickly and will thus
resort to the barbarity of which we see enough examples in these days
of comparative plenty.

To try to hide behind pretended uncertainty and the buzzwords of "ethics"
is to willingly & openly choose catastrophe rather than hope.

[GliderGuider]

8. That's the point, isn't it?

We know that reducing human impact on the planet is essential for our own future as well as the future of other living species industrial resources. We know that suitable technologies and policies are available to implement the reduction. The final question becomes, will we do it?

I maintain that there are too many behavioural obstacles in the way, and that we will keep on pretending that conferences and studies are the solution, and that the effects we see are due to other causes, until long after the frank effects of catastrophe appear in our own societies.

[lutherj]

9. Just to clarify: I'm certainly not advocating doing nothing. I'm not even

necessarily against working toward an 80% reduction in 20 years. Mostly I'm just speculating out loud (and not very coherently or comprehensively, I'm afraid) about the impact of these decisions. Recently, in discussions about the IEA's announced projection of a 9.1% annual decline rate in world oil production it was pointed out that this would mean a 50% reduction in available oil every eight years. In 25 years we would have less than 10% of current oil production. Most would agree that this would be a catastrophic scenario for the world population.

It seems to me that the 80% emissions reduction in 20 years is in the same ballpark, except that it applies not only to oil, but to natural gas, coal, deforestation, agricultural emissions, etc. Do we have the technical means to accomplish this without incurring the kind of die-off that we fear in the peak oil scenario?

Of course, one answer is that peak oil will push us in this direction anyway, and I agree it's much better to manage the decline than to do nothing and wait for it to happen. In addition, the people of the world are unlikely to sit down and starve to death for the sake of some future ecotopia. They will either adapt, or they will return to using fossil fuels one way or another.