Climate Facts, Perspectives, and Counterpoints (Issue #2, February 2023)

I wanted to follow on the launch issue of this newsletter, which was a month ago - and discussed some reflections on post COP-27 - with a discussion now of current views and perspectives on the topic of climate. Thanks to many of you who read the last issue, and have encouraged future discussions and dialog, reflecting multiple views and beliefs. My overall intent is to enable a dialog, acknowledging multiple points of view, and with perhaps a joint goal to trigger a broad set of actions, by you, your friends, and your institutions.

Given the complexity and urgency of the issues involved, simultaneous discussions and actions are already ongoing at various levels and forums - global, country, region, city, industry, value chain, individual, and others. Welcome your inputs on this issue which focuses on the points and counterpoints, and in future issues, we’ll plan to discuss how to enhance ongoing efforts, plans, and actions.

Let’s start with a few facts

One of the most important facts about climate change is that the Earth's average surface temperature has already risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius (and may reach 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 and even spike to 1.5 degrees in 2024 based on El Nino projections) over the past 3 centuries since the pre-industrial era. This may not sound like much, but it's enough to cause significant changes to the planet's climate and weather patterns. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures would have challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, and that a 2 °C temperature increase would exacerbate extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, coral bleaching, and loss of ecosystems, among other impacts (October 2018). It further stated that for global warming to be limited to 1.5 °C, and "... in order to prevent the worst climate damages, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050”. The IPCC further projected that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate, the Earth's average surface temperature could increase by as much as 4.8 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

Any increase more than 2°C would have devastating consequences for the planet, including more extreme heatwaves, droughts, and storms, as well as rising sea levels and increased flooding. As it is, the impacts of climate change are already being felt around the world, from increasing melting of ice at the poles (estimated to be about 400+ billion tons/ year of ice) and rising sea levels (approximately 8 inches in the past 125 years), to more frequent and severe heat waves (Europe, Australia, N. America), to more destructive storms and catastrophic flooding as in Pakistan and China in 2022, and many other daily reminders.

The scientific evidence is clear: the planet is warming at an alarming rate, and human activity is the primary cause. Notwithstanding natural variations in weather, almost all of the warming over the past century has been caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, industrial emissions, deforestation, deep-sea fishing, agriculture, methane from the large number of dairy cattle; overwhelming scientific evidence supports this - data from ice cores and tree rings, as well as computer models of earth’s climate.

The economic evidence is also emerging: as a very obvious measure, the insurance industry had a record $89 Billion in insured losses in 2020 (total losses were $190 Billion) which is a 250% increase in the past decade or so. There is a growing body of evidence from the insurance industry that future losses and premium costs will be many many times higher!

Aside from global warming, there is the broader question of protecting biodiversity. Earth’s biodiversity is the result of naturally occurring variations at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels, and it is important to maintain this balance, because the implications are dire. This homeostasis - naturally occurring balance - underpins the provision of food, fiber and water; it supports human health, provides economic sustainability through jobs in agriculture and fishing and others, while also mitigating and providing resilience to climate change. The loss of a species or the introduction of a non-native species, can lead to unintended consequences - e.g., unexpected increase in the population of raccoons as a result of efforts to eliminate coyote in Southern California, or killing of blue whales which greatly impacts the fertilization of microscopic phytoplankton (through their defecation), upon which all sea life depends. While every part of our ecosystem is critical due to this balance in our biodiversity, the oceans and forests are particularly critical parts - aside from being the home of billions of marine and forest species, they are the heat sink of the world, absorbing and storing carbon that is needed to maintain our climate.

Overall, human-generated pollution and contamination are affecting biodiversity at multiple levels - changes in environmental conditions lead to a loss of species and populations if they are unable to adapt to new conditions or relocate. As the human population increases, so does the pressure on ecosystems, since we draw ever more resources from them. It is important to use biodiversity in a sustainable manner by using natural resources at a rate that our Earth can renew them - we need to ensure that we meet the needs of both present and future generations.

As a human race, our thinking needs to and can shift from resource exploitation to resource conservation. McDonough and Braungart (2013) go one step further - can we go beyond just using, reusing, and recycling resources to improving the world we live in? The authors say “Instead of protecting the planet from human impact, why not redesign our activity to improve the environment? We can have a beneficial, sustainable footprint.”

The contrarian perspective

The scientific method teaches us to consider alternative theories. In this case, the null hypothesis is that either there is no significant change in climate or that much of the changes in climate are natural and will adjust on their own.

Discussions reflecting contrarian views fall into four major categories: (1) it’s not happening, (2) it’s not us, (2) it’s not bad, (3) climate science/ scientists are unreliable, and (4) solutions won’t work (Travis G. Coan, Constantine Boussalis, John Cook & Mirjam O. Nanko, 2021).

On the first three categories, the evidence is irrefutable, even if there are some differences in the accurate interpretation of the data or the models. There has been an increase in global temperatures which is caused by an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the evidence is clear that it is caused by human activity particularly since the industrial revolution in the 18th century! This evidence includes:

1. Temperature record: The Earth's surface temperature has been steadily rising since the late 19th century - the 20 warmest years on record occurring since 1981 and the 10 warmest years occurring since 1998. This warming trend is consistent with the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide, which trap heat from the sun.
2. Ice melt and Sea level rise: The melting of ice caps, glaciers, and sea ice is a clear indication of warming temperatures. Earth is losing 1.2 Trillion tons of ice every year - this is particularly visible in the Arctic, where sea ice has been decreasing at an alarming rate and glaciers are retreating; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are also rapidly losing mass. Sea levels have been rising at an increasing rate over the past century - 20 centimeters since the 1800s, growing at 3-4 millimeters/ year and expected to reach 65 centimeters by 2100 -?due to thermal expansion of seawater caused by the temperature increase) and the melting of ice sheets and glaciers.
3. Ocean acidification: The oceans absorb about 25% of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, which lowers the pH of seawater (so more acidic), and this ocean acidification is having a detrimental effect on marine life.
4. Climate models: Computer models of the climate system, take into account a wide range of factors, including greenhouse gas emissions, solar radiation, and ocean currents. The predictions made by these models are consistent with the observed temperature record and other climate data. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a major contributor.
5. Extreme weather events: Climate change is leading to more frequent and severe extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts, and floods. This is consistent with what scientists expect to see as a result of global warming.
6. Carbon dioxide concentrations: The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the Industrial Revolution. This increase is directly linked to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and cement production. This is evidenced by the fact that the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere has been decreasing in recent times - this ratio is lower in fossil fuels than that of the atmosphere, confirming that that burning fossil fuels is the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
7. Historical data and human fingerprints: Historical data on human activities, such as industrialization, urbanization, and deforestation, show a correlation with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and warming temperatures. Scientists have identified specific "fingerprints" of human-caused climate change, such as warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere, and changes in precipitation patterns.
8. Insurance industry evidence: As mentioned earlier, the insurance industry is an economic/ financial barometer of climate change. A 2021 Swiss Re Sigma report suggests that premiums for property and casualty will grow at double the historic growth!

The last contrarian point about “solutions won’t work” (category four) is clearly a very complex one - how will we know if the solutions won’t work until we have a good plan and assess it and action it jointly. Questions of priority, economics, investment, and time horizon come in. Is it more important to provide jobs today or divert resources to climate action? Which areas and form should the investments be prioritized in? Who should pay for these and who benefits from these? And, as someone said, “.. Earth will live on in a different way … another cycle… humanity may/ will not … But, do we want to be responsible for the end of the human race …? Maybe it doesn’t matter because we won’t be here, nor our children … but our grandchildren and their descendants will likely face the implications! “

This fourth category triggers all sorts of complexities - bias, personal gain, asymmetric costs (the developed world caused more of the damage), impact on country policies and politics, unknown technologies (will solar geo-engineering help or harm?), and others - which we can discuss in a future issue. Clearly, this question also needs a nuanced and balanced view, reflecting multiple perspectives - developed and developing countries, resource-rich and other countries, corporate and societal, and others - as a basis for fair and implementable ideas and using a collaborative and inclusive approach. As we are seeing, easier said than done - lots more doing needed!

What’s the plan and is there a “Manhattan Project”

A lot of progress has clearly been made over the past decade, despite all the often frustrating debate about facts and causes of global warming. These include - resolutions at the twenty seven COP meetings (COP-28 in 2023), commitments by most countries, agreement on a loss and damage fund, technology investments in applications ranging from renewable energy to carbon sequestration to upcycling plastics, a number of regulations and policies being put in place by different countries and industry associations, and very recently the significant incentives and investments by the EU, US, Middle East, China, and others.

Are these enough to get us to a net-zero world by 2050, i.e., go from today’s 59 Gigatons of CO2 equivalent/ year down to “zero”? Is there an overall plan and execution focus, much like the “Manhattan Project” focused the United States during World War II, but at a scale that is orders of magnitudes greater? Who and how will drive execution? In one of the next newsletter discussions, we’ll debate on creating pragmatic plans, cascading goals, participating parties, prioritized technologies, execution progress and others.

Key References:

Bevere, Lucia and Federica Remondi (2022), “Natural catastrophes in 2021: the floodgates are open”, Sigma Research, Swiss Re Institute, 30 March, 2022

Coan, Travis G., Constantine Boussalis, John Cook & Mirjam O. Nanko (2021) “Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change” Scientific Reports 11, Article number: 22320 (2021)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018), “IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C”, October 8, 2018

McDonough, William and Michael Braungart (2013), “The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability—Designing for Abundance”, North Point Press.