Into the Future, Gradually

A plethora of reports is coming out these days on climate change and its impacts, as floods of research data become available.  They come from groups like the American National Research Council (made up of members of the National Academy of Science, a distinguished group indeed) and a variety of international groups, including the U.N (some not yet officially released).  While the details differ, they share common conclusions about major changes underway on ocean, air and land.  The terms of art now seem to be amelioration versus adaptation (significant changes are now inevitable, so prevention no longer shows up), tipping points (not point), a variability of consequences depending on the part of the world you live in, and incremental versus all-out responses.  While the details increase in complexity, the big picture becomes ever more clear and simple.

The reports now downplay, but do not totally rule out, likelihoods of major changes from shutting off ocean currents or from methane bubbles, but raise the likelihood of large dead ocean areas from acidification and oxygen deprivation killing off entire species of sea life, and large releases of carbon into the atmosphere, which might in turn create a vicious cycle of hotter and hotter temperatures from decaying vegetation and forest fires.  Deserts will experience enlargement as drought increases (it’s happening in China now), while low-lying coastal areas and high latitudes will drown.  Crop yields in some parts of the world will severely decline while increasing elsewhere, but overall there’s a significant likelihood of devastating impacts on the hungry of the world as yields drop sharply below increasing demand.

Multiple tipping points, when large changes happen suddenly, are possible on both land and sea.  Sea levels can sharply rise while a vicious carbon cycle begins in the atmosphere.  The danger appears to increase when temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees Celsius, a point we seem approaching with some certainty now.  And environmental change can trigger political and social conflict.  The 21^st century may become the age of water wars and revolution.  At the least, there will be major migrations and frictions arising from the differing ways climate will behave in various parts of the world.

In the face of all this, what’s one to do?  Political resistance remains strong from the “Don’t blame my SUV” crowd and the pace, though not direction, of change is still uncertain.  The popular response from the scientific community seems to be to propose incremental responses as the data gets worse and worse.  That’s probably the most practical approach politically, and saves scientists from egg on their faces as the pace of particular changes varies from what was predicted.  But it seems to me like an adoption in advance of a “too little, too late” philosophy, which brings inherent major risks.

The incremental approach, while comfortable to the cautious, raises alarming prospects of always staying behind nature.  Building 6 foot sea walls when 10 foot walls are eventually going to be needed simply delays inevitable catastrophe.  Attempting to clean coal instead of eliminating its use altogether does the same. Limiting your actions to only those on which everyone can agree is a recipe for disaster.  And the approach ignores the argument that an all-out effort to manage climate change is actually good for the economy the naysayers are so worried about.  Worrying about economic damage is the province mostly of entrenched interests who resist any sort of change at all.  New technologies, new materials, new infrastructure, new jobs are all the natural consequences of tackling new sorts of environmental issues.  The bolder the better is the watchword needed.  It’s time to stop seeing crises and start seeing opportunities.