Our Last Handicap

Why the Stakes of the Climate Game Are Set

Personal Essay by Michael C. Rubin - MIT Alumni for Climate Action

2022 is a tragic year. Apart from the horrific war in the Ukraine, it is the year in which humanity seems to accept that climate change is inevitable and the effort to combat it subsided. Amid the long-desired end of the Covid-19 pandemics, the energy crisis, a global inflation, and geopolitical tensions, we had better things to do than worrying about our future. COP-27 was concerned with selfies for Business leaders and climate adaptation (which is a terrible idea), Europe resuscitates its coal energy, and the population enjoys life’s amenities, while unprecedented climate disasters push 800 million people into starvation. In the following lines, I will explain why I am not very optimistic about our future.

Good Read

1. What do 2?C Warming mean

What is the problem with an increase of 2?C? Isn’t it nice to have warmer summers? In the end, most Europeans are not blessed with warm and nice weather all year long. Well, we have to remember that this is a global average temperature. It doesn’t necessary tell you much about your local weather. The temperature, however, is the driver of many atmospheric processes, including rain, wind, storms, and the frequency you get a certain weather at your place.

You can think of this temperature more like a fever indicator for the health of the planet. Your body’s average temperature is around 36?C. Of course, the temperature varies across different parts of your body and across time, e.g. at night your body cools down and your feet are probably colder than your kidney. While your hand has no problem supporting a 5? warmer temperature, an increase of your body’s average temperature to 41?C compromises many organs, your circulation may collapse, and your body will eventually die.

The same happens to our planet. There is no problem if we have a 5?C increase at one particular place or one particular moment. But if the average temperature increases by 5?C, many processes will collapse. Let’s look at few details to understand this. I will take the example of 4?C warming because this corresponds to the IPCC worst case scenario, which is what we’re heading for.

Local Climate: If the global annual mean temperature increases by 4?C, temperatures on land, and especially in northern latitudes, will increase by around 6?C. This is because the oceans increase by only 2?C given the greater head capacity of water. Consequently, the typical climate in Germany might be similar to today’s Sicily or Greece.

Wandering Deserts: It is no coincidence that Spain, Sicily, and Greece do have very dry weather. The region between the 25? and 40? latitude (e.g. from the Sahara through South France) is called the desert band, which is driven by the so-called Hadley Cells. On the equator, hot, moist air rises, condensates, and rains down. The air then travels towards the cooler poles. At a certain point, it becomes completely dry and sinks back to earth. This causes high pressure weather with almost no rain, for a good part of the year. If the temperatures now travel further northwards, the hadley cell simply expand with them, and the desert band wanders to central Europe. Germany sees this happening since some years.

Jet Stream and Extremes: The Jet Stream is a strong wind band in the mid latitudes, blowing from West to East. It is the major driving force of our weather in central Europe. Whenever a weather situation in Europe has established (e.g., high pressure or heavy rain), sooner or later the jet stream blows it away, which gives room for the next system. Therefore, we hardly see weeks or months of the same weather. But if the temperature at the north pole become warmer, especially if the ice sheets melt, this wind band weakens. The jet stream starts meandering and travels in “waves”. These waves provide room for either very hot and dry or very wet and rainy weather to establish and stay for weeks. This is the reason for which we see increasing extreme and long-persisting weather in Europe and North America, which causes drought and flooding.

Soil moisture: Soils are our storage and buffer of water. They do not only provide a constant flow of water to crops and rivers, but they also evaporate and make sure we have a certain humidity in the atmosphere, even after days or weeks without rain. The problem is that the soil needs time to infiltrate water. If it rains very heavily, most of that water runs off and only a small percentage of it gets stored. Ideally, rain would fall evenly distributed across the year. If the same annual rain quantity now falls in fewer, heavier rain events, more of that water runs off to the sea only a small part of it remains in the local area. The chart above shows the soil dryness (red and yellow are drought conditions) in Basel, Switzerland, during the last 35 years. Soon, we will no longer be able to grow food without irrigation in Germany and Switzerland.

2. Going Back 20 million Years

The above are just four out of many changes, which will happen when our global mean temperature increases by 4?C or more. But what are the overall consequences for humanity? Let’s zoom out and understand the broader context of what we’re doing to our planet. The below graph shows the average global temperature on a logarithmic scale, i.e., it goes back 60 million years.

The first thing we note is that while earth’s temperature did vary across its lifespan, the last time it was more than 5?C hotter than today was around 20-50Mio years ago. This was the era after Dinosaurs became extinct. No human being has ever managed to live under such conditions.

The second important observation is that during the last 10’000 years, we had an extraordinary stable climate. This allowed agriculture to develop, which is the foundation of today’s sedimentary civilization. It is no coincidence that Southern China and Brazil do have larger populations than the Arabian Peninsula or the Sahara. If the climate stability gets stirred up, maybe the Sahara becomes fertile and Southeast Asia runs dry. It is not clear if and how we could move Billions of people around the globe after the new living-friendly climate zones, wherever they might emerge. Hunger, wars and resource conflicts are a likely consequence.

The third noteworthy detail is that the increase in temperature we currently experience is very (extremely) quick as compared to the historic temperature variations. Usually, it took the planet hundreds of thousands of years to change just two degrees, which meant the ecosystems and species had time to adapt. Today, the same happens in a matter of decades. Ecosystems are shocked and thrown out of their balance, which leads to all sort of unpredictable feedback effects.

To be clear, there will be no technological miracle, which solves the problem for us and saves humanity. Meat will not be produced without large methane emission, the 3 billion Africans and Asians will not get access to electric cars and green energy overnight and it’s impossible to produce enough building material without a significant CO2 footprint. If we want to spare humanity from a climate disaster, there is simply no other way than drastically reducing our Carbon footprint. In case you hoped for Carbon sequestration or climate adaption, I must disappoint you. Carbon sequestration, if ever, will take two decades to be feasible at the needed scale. By then many feedback effects will be triggered and disaster will be made. Further, we cannot adapt for a planet with drastically worse living conditions. The only adaptation (which will happen automatically) is the reduction of the population down to some 3 billion people. If we take all this together, we can say that we are driving our civilization towards an abysm. We have still some 1200ppm left before we crash, and our current speed is around 50ppm.

3. Switzerland: When the Best in Class Fails

I am usually an optimistic person. In the case of climate change, however, I am not. The reason behind my pessimism has little to do with climate science. Instead, it’s about the Swiss society and Covid-19. Switzerland because the Swiss society is some of the best working civil and political society ever existed. People have a high level of general education, think long-term, stick to ethical principles, and the direct democracy works well. Covid-19 is an interesting learning case because it shares some of the characteristics with climate change – it’s a natural force, with which we cannot negotiate, it’s not directly visible, its control requires us to make economic concessions and it does not hit all people equally.

We should expect that Swiss civil society has an easy game to take the right decisions when faced with the Covid-19 pandemics. However, what we observed during the peak in late 2020 shows another picture. Summarizing the events, throughout the summer 2020, epidemiologists have warned that we are on an exponentially increasing path and, comes autumn, cases will skyrocket. The general society, led by economic interest groups, however, chose to go into denial and prioritize the economy instead. This continued even once it was beyond reasonable doubt that the strategy was wrong and that it will come at a much higher cost in the form of a 3-month long lockdown.

4. Fatal Games

To see where the connection to Climate Change lies, let’s turn the situation into a simplified Game. Game Theory can help to understand the relevant options in complex decision situations.

In the game of Covid-19, we can identify two players: The Society (represented by the Government) and the Virus. Each player has two options. The Virus can Hit or not Hit, while the government can decide for a Lockdown or for no Lockdown. This gives us 4 different outcome scenarios with different results in terms of Economy and Health, as presented on the chart below. What is different from a classic Prisoner’s Dilemma situation is the fact that the Virus is no real player, i.e., it doesn’t respond to our decision, but rather, his strategy is pre-determined. This should make it easier for the government to take his optimal decision.

Of course, society wishes that the yellow scenario would materialize because it has the highest overall benefit. However, this depends on the decision of the virus. Given that, after the scientific community, the second player opted to Hit, society’s option space is reduced to either the red or the green scenario. As we saw, the society opted for the red scenario, causing unnecessary health problems for no economic benefit. It is not exactly clear how a rational society came to this decision. It seems that some form of denialism, mixed with short-termism and a desperate hope for a miracle (i.e., Virus suddenly disappears, and curve flattens overnight) was more appealing than facing the unpleasant reality of a bearable economic cost. While we do know these kind behaviors from humanity’s history, for example in religious dogma or witch hunts, it is surprising that one of the most advanced civil societies in the 21st century did not yet develop effective strategies to cope with such a situation.

From here, it is only a small step to climate change. In fact, we just need to exchange the Virus for Climate Change and the Lockdown for the CO2 Reduction and Ceteris Paribus. On the outcome side, we now have to manage a balance between the Economy and Disasters. As in the situation with the Virus, our opponent has most likely already made his game and will Hit. I would argue that the scientific evidence here is much stronger than in the former case. Nevertheless, once again, all indicates that our society is opting for the red outcome.

To cite some evidence, in 2020, the Swiss People voted in a popular vote against a law, which would have brought the country on a more sustainable path. The main argument from the opposing side was that “it may cost something”. It seems that most people are, once again, stuck in denialism, blended with the hope for a technology miracle and short-term hedonism.

5. Extending to 8 billion People

Between 2010 and 2019, about 800 million adults have joint the global middle class and start consuming products and services beyond the basic necessities, such as meat, mobility, energy, better housing, and electronics. If the same trend continues, we will have 2,7 billion new consumers by 2050. This is, of course, first and foremost fantastic news that so many people can escape poverty. However, it poses the problem of how we are going to produce all this energy, food, and products for so many people without destroying our planet completely.

After almost 10 years in Brazil, a country which saw a rising middle class, I can say with confidence that people are eager to follow the western lifestyle of consumerism in search of joy and happiness. This will drive markets for cheap meat, energy, and hazardous materials. New shopping malls, residential towers, meat packing plants and coal plants will mushroom across Africa and Asia. If we ask these people to keep their consumption in check to save the planet, we might get one of two possible answers:

1. why should I do that, given that you (Europe, USA) did the same?
2. I will happily consume a more sustainable product, given it has no additional cost.

Honestly, I have no good answer to these arguments. It seems that with the introduction of our modern-day, almost religions obsession for consumption we have opened Pandora’s box.

6. Les Jeux Sont Faits (The Stakes Are Set)

This, in essence, is why I am pessimistic about climate change. If we want to avoid a climate disaster, we do not only need to drastically reduce our own consumption, but we also need to convince a rising global middle class of around 3 billion people to do the same. In fact, we should be happily going ahead, reduce our environmental footprint to zero and show new, prosperous but sustainable lifestyles. Only when we be great examples do we have a chance to convince our African and Asian fellows to opt for the same, more sustainable lifestyle.

In contrast, even the most functional civil society has no good strategy to overcome the climate challenge and doesn’t even accept a bearable economic cost. If Switzerland gives preference to denialism over reason, to short-term hedonism over long-term safety, to believe over science, how would we expect poor Africa, divided America, or censored China to do differently??We believe that we can stand on our exclusive plot of irrigated green and continue to play to our handicap, while others will extinct the fire for us. We are mistaken. They will not. They will, instead, join our game and bring their own handicaps. It is a game whose stakes are set. It might be our last game. It will certainly be our last Handicap…

In hope to be wrong!

Michael C. Rubin

Epilog

Dear Reader,

Thank you for reading my climate article. I know it is heavy stuff and it might, hopefully, shock a little bit. I think it is the only way to keep any hope alive.

I do also start with myself. Between my former lifestyle as a Business Executive and now, I could reduce my CO2 footprint by more than 70%, from 19 tons to around 5 tons per year (see appendix A), which I always offset. This is still much too high. What is key, however, is that it was quite easy to achieve these 70% reduction. I basically stopped unnecessary and stressful business flights and focus my (meat) consumption to more quality and less quantity. The emissions form mobility (except flights) is now very low. We have only a very small car, which uses Ethanol fuel (5x lower in emissions) and we use it as little as possible. For example, I go only 2x per week to the office, which is about 7km, sharing a car with my wife on the way there and I always walk back. After some initial blisters, there is nothing more joyful than walking through nice avenues and parks, completing three tasks at a time (physical exercise, go to work and listening to e-books). In total, I walk around 75km per week (see appendix B). Overall, I can say that the reduction in my CO2 footprint didn’t come with any discomfort. Rather, I gained a lot of quality, time, and satisfaction as a consequence.

Did you know that 70% of the CO2 emissions are causes by the richest 20% of earth’s people, to which you probably belong? For us, reducing and offsetting is no more than a side-expense.

Sincerely,

Michael Cardoso Rubin

Appendix A: Michael’s CO2 Footprint

Based on: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

Goals:

• From 2020 on Net Zero for myself
• From 2023 on Net Zero for my Family
• By 2030 offset all lifetime emissions for myself and my family

Appendix B: How Michael returns from Office

Cited Literature

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
• https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php
• https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-arctic-polar-vortex
• Graph from: [https://www.meteoblue.com/de/wetter/archive/risk]
• Graph adapted from: [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809600115]
• https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
• Graph adapted from: [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf]
• https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/wealth-household-economie/