Tribalism and Climate Change Mitigation
In response to my post: Legal Case in the Netherlands – Failure to Curb Climate Change Is a Violation of Human Rights, my colleague Glenn Doty writes:
The Dutch have a much more personal relationship to the issue of global warming… it will cost them a great deal more in managing their dike system…..Even if we were to stop all emissions immediately, we’ll likely still see a sea-level increase of ~2 m over the next century. That would result in a VERY significant increase in flood control costs (as ~2/3rds of the country is vulnerable to flooding,)…..So it matters a little more to the Dutch that we target global warming as rapidly as possible. They won’t be able to pressure other countries effectively unless they can show that they themselves are going way above and beyond within their own borders….If we in the U.S. continue the rate of emissions drop from 2007 to 2013 for another 8 years, we will bring our emissions down to 17% less than 1990 levels. We are dropping our emissions at a rate that is almost as fast as the Dutch, even though they stand to lose 2/3rds of their country, while we will only lose portions of Florida, Georgia, SC, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Thanks, Glenn; I’m always amazed at the remarkable grasp you have on all this.
Also, a remarkable thing is the way humankind compartmentalizes itself according to national identity. Occasionally, someone declares that he’s “a citizen of the world,” but most of us are tightly locked into a certain nationalism, as if our lives, as Americans for example, are worth more–or have a higher moral content–than those of the Dutch, or Liberians, or Japanese. Isn’t it weird that we here in the U.S. are less concerned about sea level rise than the Dutch, simply because we’re going to lose less territory?
I remember feeling this way from the time I was a small boy, when it struck me as profoundly stupid that my chums clearly thought less of the kids that attended rival schools.
All this recalls the “goodbye” video that Arthur C. Clark (pictured) made on his 90th birthday, when he knew he’d soon be leaving his loved ones and his many millions of fans. In it, he told us: “I have great faith in optimism as a guiding principle, if only because it offers us the opportunity of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I hope we’ve learnt something from the most barbaric century in history — the 20th. I would like to see us overcome our tribal divisions and begin to think and act as if we were one family. That would be real globalization …”
Given the course of world events since Clark’s passing in 2008, in the Middle East and elsewhere, it’s clear that we’re making little headway here just now; in fact, at times we appear to be going backwards. I believe part of the reason is that we act as though tribalism is a good thing in many cases. I’m a bit sickened when I hear about this phenomenon, especially among people who really should know better, e.g., how the freshmen at UCLA are indoctrinated to hate anyone who has gone, is going, or will ever go to USC. I used to think this was a joke, but, sadly, it isn’t, as you’ll learn if you click here. Mind you, these aren’t illiterate gang-bangers from East Los Angeles; they’re among the smartest kids in the country.
Yes, Clark left us with a sense of optimism that humankind has learned something, and that we can transcend this tribalism, and I suppose I share it, but we certainly have our work cut out for us.
Great post Craig.
I hope that you realize that I was quantifying the differences in government interest, not expressing personal disinterest.
I care a great deal about the Netherlands, Madagascar, Bangladesh, and even the deluded fools in Florida and Louisiana… I regret the inevitability of their inundation, and am working to mitigate it as best I can with the resources and influence that I possess… even if I know the efforts are largely futile. It’s already too late to prevent at least a 4-5 m ocean level rise within the next two centuries. But we can at least slow it down, and possibly prevent a 10 m ocean level rise in the next 3 centuries.
*shrug*
It’s better to have fought the good fight and lost than to have not fought, watched the good fight lose, and wonder if you could have made a difference.
🙂
I fear that humanity as a whole is far away from achieving the emission reduction required to stabilise global climate.
As Glenn says, if we stop emitting CO2 today, sea level is likely to rise a further 2 metres. In fact it looks likely that it will take until around 2030 for the annual CO2 emissions to stabilise at a level significantly higher than today’s emissions. Only after 2030 will annual emissions begin to decline. It will then take decades after that before atmospheric CO2 levels stabilise, and decades after that to bring atmospheric CO2 levels back below 400 parts per million.
Glenn’s point in his comment about 4-5 metres ocean level rise is probably at the low end of the risk, and does not take into account certain feedback mechanisms which might rapidly make the situation a great deal worse!
1. Arctic albedo – the Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet as open water absorbs sunshine unlike ice which tends to reflect it. The more ice melts, the faster it will tend to melt.
2. The Arctic region contains vast stores of methane and biological materials such as peat which can break down to CO2 and methane. Already, there is a significant acceleration in methane emissions in the Arctic regions, and some projections indicate a possibility that a massive increase in such methane emissions may result in methane having a bigger effect on the climate than CO2.
If this is true, then it is unlikely that a 2 degree centigrade anthropogenic warming is possible as the climate system will be destabilised by feedback mechanisms and pass through this level on the way to a new stable condition far warmer than today. e.g. much of the tropics lethally hot, and Mediterranean like conditions during the summer months on the coasts of the Arctic ocean. Sea levels in this scenario rising by as much as 70 metres over the next few hundred years.
3. Major rainforests drying out and turning into net CO2 emitters – hotter dryer conditions could trigger a major escalation in forest fires, deterioration in the condition of the forests, and a loss of soil carbon from the forest floor.
Current efforts to tackle climate change are in my view far too weak to have the necessary effect, and the longer this goes on, the bigger and more expensive will be the methods needed to stabilise the climate.
I second Garyt’s notes. Climatologists face sufficient skepticism within the USA that they are, of necessity, very conservative in any quotations to the popular press or lay magazines. Based on the research, we have a non-linear sequence of events that is highly likely to take out both Greenland and Antarctica within the current century possibly as early as 2050. This is right around the corner for anyone’s children. The difficult part of this in my opinion is defining the boundary conditions of the new normal. That there will be a new normal is without doubt, but much like warfare, what do we define to be acceptable losses?
Case in point: the San Joaquin Valley in California. A significant portion of the agriculture for a state that is a significant part of the USA agriculture. There is no question that natural forces will return it to being an inland sea. Is that acceptable loss or will we try to do something about it? Another example is Florida. With a minimum of 13 meters of sea level rise (Greenland/Antarctica most optimistic numbers), the southern portion of the state will be mostly gone. Acceptable loss? Even if not acceptable, the engineering has yet to be invented for solving a problem of that magnitude. Given the magnitude of the projects, thoughtful discussion is required. I have no desire to be a pessimist arguing for the inevitability of a future dystopia, but at some point as the bus bears down, one needs to run towards the sidewalk.
Dear Kansas Commerce Commission:
Westar Energy must not be allowed to make changes to its rate structure designed to interfere with and oppress distributed energy while opposing EPA mandated changes needed to protect the public’s welfare.
(see first item attached)
The above is an informed position that I take and one that agrees with scientists and with sustainability leaders like Len Hering; and I take the above position in part because I’ve (as one of Westar’s long term customers) proposed a modified business model for Westar that is designed to enable Westar to adapt distributed generation and Westar has steadfastly refused to even discuss my proposal, which I believe indicates the company has bowed it’s neck and refuses to even consider my proposal and what is in the best interests of it’s customers and what benefits to it’s customers could be embodied in the modified business model I have to propose.
Rear Admiral Leendert “Len” Hering Sr. (U.S. Navy, retired), is a prominent military and civilian sustainability leader with a broad background in energy and environmental issues. His main passion is sustainability and educating people on the dangers the future holds without taking responsible actions to secure the nation’s cleaner energy future and preserve water, air quality and other resources.
Mr. Hering says;
“The truth is, distributed generation is the answer, and the chaos that’s needed in the utility sector is needed today,” adding “If the energy companies can’t figure out how to get there from here, we’re going to figure it out on our own.”
I wrote the above letter to the KCC in response to their asking for public comments on a rate hike request by Westar Energy that would add a set fee to all their customers regardless of how much utility power they consumed, which would be unfair to those who are consuming less.
I believe the Dutch have somewhat more to gain than most if my novel new utility power plan is accepted universally across all continents.
Here is an attachment I placed on the message to the KCC and that I had sent to utilities.
Electric Power Utilities: Can’t We Be Partners?
AAEC is About Enabling City to County Scale Conversion and Utilization of Locally Available Biomass Resources, Including Municipal Wastes and Fossil Fuels (like natural gas and coal) in more highly efficient distributed power generation and biofuels production facilities.
No longer is it acceptable to continually saddle our economy with producing and trucking vast amounts of municipal wastes to landfills and taxing residents and businesses with paying tipping fees to dispose of it, then, once the landfills are filled, to open up new landfills and continue this extremely wasteful process. This is an inadequate and increasingly expensive approach to an ongoing problem that cries out for a permanent and comprehensive solution that doesn’t drain the economy and force cuts to numerous programs the people have developed over time to deal with ongoing problems such as unemployment, health issues, hunger and crime.
Scaleable biomass and waste conversion via gasification enables a community to adopt a permanent and localized solution to many ongoing problems of municipal waste management and lowering its carbon footprint. Waste gasification technology is quickly becoming a larger part of a comprehensive solution for cleaner localized clean energy production. Improved MSW management, is also becoming a more sustainable and environmentally responsible contributor to the triple bottom line for institutions of all sizes like schools, companies, communities and other types of organized entities such as towns, cities, counties and even states.
The phrase “the triple bottom line” was first coined in 1994 by John Elkington, the founder of a British consultancy called SustainAbility. His argument was that companies should be preparing three different bottom lines. One is the traditional measure of corporate profit—the “bottom line” of the profit and loss account. The second is the bottom line of a company’s “people account” a measure of how socially responsible an organization has been throughout its operations. The third is the bottom line of the company’s “planet” protection account, in other words a measure of how environmentally responsible it has been. The triple bottom line (TBL) thus consists of three Ps: profit, people and planet. It aims to measure the financial, social and environmental performance of an entity over time. Entities that adopt a progressive TBL improvement program are taking a full account of the full cost involved in doing business.
California, once the bastion of distributed energy, knuckled under to the three big IOUs and is going to lay a large charge on even those of us who keep the meter permanently running backwards. The inevitable pushback is building.
Yes, and it is hard to know where this will go. What we need, obviously, is a complete rewrite of the deal we have with our utilities, but not that easy, even all the money and politics involved.
A reader notes:
You (Craig) are raising a valid concern. The Dutch have been masters of managing water for centuries and understand how to work with it. We do have our challenges.
There was a very interesting summit at NASA Ames, Mountain View CA, about Sea Level rise There is no question this is an issue that we need to deal with. Some slight encouraging news:
1. Google worked with an environmental organization to map the SF bay with a boat camera drone. This is a good way to get the job done and perhaps this will lead to others doing something similar. This news is about 6 months old.
2, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park are working on a floodplain control system with levees. It is not perfect but it is a start. Having East Palo Alto included is key since it is so low lying and a disadvantaged community.
Google Boat Drone
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Google-camera-helps-capture-bay-s-rising-sea-6080481.php
http://abc7news.com/science/google-working-to-map-san-francisco-bay/515645/
https://twitter.com/caropacific/status/568853901300015104
Flood protection
http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Project.aspx?ProjectPK=9808&PropositionPK=4
Palo Alto Daily News July 10 SAFER project
It is not the answer but it is a start.
Hi Craig,
That’s one radical Judge in the Netherlands ! Of course, his judgement, while very exciting, has no practical effect in law. Legislatures are sovereign, and Judges can’t create law, or even interpret it too widely, without the legislature simply rejecting the judgement.
The issue of rising oceans, is very complex. The scientific basis for predicting the nature and scale of rising sea levels has become very confuse by all sorts of advocacy, without much scientific basis.
Over the centuries, sea levels have risen and receded for may reasons, not all understood or explained. There’s a lot of inaccurate information, based on often repeated historical data, of dubious accuracy. It’s a sad fact that once something has been quoted in enough studies, and those studies forming the basis of new studies and theories, enough times, the original data has been forgotten. If the original data was inaccurate, it’s very difficult to go back and unravel a huge body of work, especially with so many reputations and beliefs at stake.
The methods of gathering ice melt information and measuring sea levels haven’t always been very coordinated. Measuring Antarctic ice shelves can be confusing due to sudden anomalies. While one side of the continent appears to be suffering melt, the other side reveals a growth and thickening of ice layers. Why exactly this occurs is the subject of many conflicting theories.
In addition, tidal measurements are often distorted by continental of local ego-physical phenomena. There are places in the UK and every continent, which were harbours only a few hundred years ago and today are miles from the ocean.
There is also an argument that if the plent is entering a warming phase, this may not lead to dramatically higher sea levels, but much greater precipitation. This is good news for drought stricken nations and deserts. The concept is based on experiment which show that rain over oceans caused by warmer thermals increases the rate of evaporation, decreasing ocean levels.
The problem with assuming that an overall warming of two degrees Celsius climate would replicate Pliocene climate conditions, and resulting in sea levels rising 25 metres, is it must also be assumed that all the other conditions of that era, exist today.
Eric Rignot and Pannin Kanagaratnam have built highly respected reputations studying the outlet glaciers and basins of Greenland. In their opinion, Greenland is clear evidence of man made Global Warming will produce a devastating rise in sea levels. Professor Ola Johannesen published a paper criticizing the conclusions of Rignot and Kanagaratnam, pointing out the errors and omissions in the data relied upon by Rignot and Kanagaratnam.
The is no evidence that sea levels were affected by a previous thaw in the climate of Greenland in the early middle ages, or during the “little Ice Age ” from the 15th century which rendered Greenland uninhabitable.
( Despite Professor Ola Johannesen’s 257 peer reviewed papers, and life long illustrious scientific career, the IPCC and other climate change advocates, never seem to include his work when counting the contributions of “climate scientists”.
Objectivity is difficult when analyzing scientific information in a highly charged political atmosphere . Reputations are at stake, along with funding.
If one study employees inaccurate information to arrive at a conclusion, it doesn’t matter if another thousand studies employing the same inaccurate information confirm the first ! The sheer number of studies, doesn’t improve the quality of the conclusion. But it does create the ” impression” of authenticity.
The debate about the causes and effects of sea-levels, is an evolving science. It’s not helped by the shrill cries of strident advocates, making claims based on ideological or political agenda’s.
In the enthusiasm for climate change advocacy, too little objective analysis has been applied to many assertions. It’s not much point in relying on “peer reveiw” if the majority of those peers have a vested interest in a positive conclusion.
It not all the fault of those “climate scientists” becoming passionate advocates, too often the media has encouraged inexperienced academics into making unwise statements, or simply distorted and sensationalized the scientists conclusions.
As I type, I am holidaying in the beautiful waters of the South Pacific primarily in the paradise of Tuvalu. One of my few pleasures as I get older is the joy of sailing. My trip is not all holiday, although it’s an excuse to spend time with my daughter before she starts university (or turns a ” gap ” year into a permanent holiday !).
This year, I have invited several scientists from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to accompany me for the purpose of studying the effect of ocean acidification, and the possibilities of converting carbonic acid, into synthetic fuel. The coral and marine life Tuvalu have suffered greatly from the effects of ocean acidification and environmental depredations of WW2 occupation.
The dedication of these, mostly young, scientists is very inspiring. Regrettably, lacking any scientific qualifications, I can contribute little to the research, except funding.
The people of Tuvalu are also inspirational, and very optimistic of the future of the islands that make up their little nation. Considering, that Tuvalu highest point above sea level is 18 feet, their courage and determination to continue inhabiting their homes is truly humbling to observe.
Four days ago, I witnessed a gigantic container vessel bound for the USA, belching pollutant toxic bunker oil across the Pacific Ocean. It difficult not to get angry, and wonder at apathy of the citizens of these wealthy nations to the plight of these brave islanders.
The cynical hypocrisy of people in Australia, the USA etc, who sanctimoniously consider themselves environmentalists, but are smugly content with their government passing regulation forbidding bunker oil usage in their territorial waters, while polluting the environment of these little peoples, who derive no benefit from the marine traffic but must suffer the devastation.
Grrr…..