The New York Times’ Andy Revkin had this very interesting post last week: “Three Long Views of Life With Rising Seas“. He asked three folks for their long-term view on how human might deal with the centennial-scale effects of Antarctic glacier melt. Some of their (partial) responses merit further thought:
Curt Stager, Paul Smith: Imagine the stink we would all raise if another nation tried to take even one inch of our coastline away from us – and yet here is a slow taking of countless square miles from our shores by a carbon-driven ocean-turned-invader.
David Grinspoon: But I think if our society is around for several more centuries we will have to have found different ways to deal collectively with our world-changing technologies. If we’ve made it that far, we’ll find ways to adapt.
Kim Stanley Robinson: It was when the ice core data in Greenland established the three-year onset of the Younger Dryas that the geologists had to invent the term “abrupt climate change” because they had so frequently abused the word “quick” sometimes meaning several thousand years when they said that. Thus the appearance of “Abrupt Climate Change” as a term (and a National Research Council book in 2002).
Andy Revkin finished with: The realities of sea-level rise and Antarctic trends and China’s emissions, etc., make me feel ever more confident that the [bend, stretch, reach, teach] shift I charted for my goals in my TEDx talk (away from numbers and toward qualities) is the right path.
Chinese coal use almost equals that of the rest of the world combined, according to the EIA:
This is but one reason I believe <2C warming is already a historical consideration. All of this coal production and consumption would have to stop immediately if we have any hope of meeting this political goal. That will not happen – absent coal generated power, which constitutes the majority generated, the global economy would spin into a depression.
On the good news front, U.S. consumers are expanding home energy efficiency and distributed power generation, according to Deloitte. These practices started with the Great Recession, but for the first time are continuing after the economy “recovers”. In 2013, new solar growth occurred among families making between $40,000 and $90,000. The most engaged demographic could be Generation Y: “1/3 said they “definitely/probably” will buy a smart energy application, which is up from 28 percent in 2011.”
I’ve let my drought series lapse, but have kept watching conditions evolve across the country. California has obviously been in the news due its drought and wildfires. All of California is currently in a “severe” drought for the first time since the mid-1970s (see picture below). So the quick science point: this has happened before (many times; some worse than this) and isn’t primarily caused by anthropogenic forcing. The quick impacts point: California’s population is double today what it was in the mid-1970s. Therefore, the same type of drought will have more impact. Wrapping these points together: drought impacts could be greater in the 2010s than the 1970s due to sociological and not physical factors. An important caveat: Californians are more adept now at planning for and responding to drought. They recognize how dry normal conditions can get and have adapted more so than other places in the U.S. Drought conditions likely won’t improve until this winter during the next rainy season since last winter was a bust for them.
An incredible story comes from the New York Times about what it takes to engage communities on climate and energy issues. Nebraska farmers and ranchers are fighting against the Keystone XL pipeline. Why, you might ask? Well, they’re certainly not a bunch of hippie greens. No, they’re responding to their lifestyle and value system. If KXL is built, it will be built on their land. That means someone will take away small pieces of a bunch of farmers land, because the locals have already refused $250,000 payments for them. If KXL is built, it will risk locals’ cattle. Who do you think will suffer if the pipeline leaks? The cows, the ranchers, and the Ogallala Aquifer of course. A critical piece of the paper is this:
Here was one of the best stories she’d ever seen: Conservative American farmers rise up to protect their land. She could use the image of the family farm to reframe the way Nebraskans thought about environmentalism. It wasn’t going to be Save the Sandhill Cranes. It was going to be Save the Neighbors.
To get Nebraskans to respond to environmental issues, you have to engage them on their values, not yours (unless of course you share them). This is the key that environmentalists have missed for decades and its part of the reason why environmentalism is so politicized. It’s why conservatives tend not to respond to climate activism framing.
There’s plenty more where this came from. Stay tuned.