parris presentation

The physical and economic impacts of climate change

Solutions and Future Directions in Water, Energy and Waste Management Forum

Dr Brett Parris

30 August 2011

Rydges Bell City

The Big Picture

Context: Resurgent skepticism. Why?

Recapping the science

The stakes: Projections and likely impacts

Australia’s contribution to the problem

What’s needed?

1990 Liberal Campaign Pledge

Liberal leader John Hewson took the same policy to the 1993 electionSource: Guy Pearse, http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/11/16/what-turned-the-liberal-party-off-climate-change-action/

Incentives for disproving link between greenhouse gases and climate change

Climate scientists: • Nobel Prize• Lasting fame• Thanks of a grateful world• Huge research grants

Fossil‐fuel intensive industries:• Hundreds of billions of $ in future

revenues• Higher asset values & stock prices• Increased ability to attract

talented staff• Improved brand image

Conclusion?• VERY strong incentives for

climate scientists to disprove link. Hasn’t happened.

• VERY strong incentives for fossil‐fuel intensive industries to try to disprove or create doubt about link.

Source: http://nobelprize.org/educational/nobelprize_info/

Documenting the backlash

Example: CO2 is natural ‐ how can it be a pollutant?

A: Whether something is natural or not is irrelevant. It all depends on its concentration and effects on the system

•Manure is natural. Some on your fields is good. Neck deep isn’t.

• A fraction of a drop of nerve agent VX (less than 10 milligrams) will kill you stone dead. (0.000014% of 70kg body weight, compared with atmospheric CO2 concentration 392 parts per million or 0.0392%)

• CO2 is only one (the most important) of around 60 greenhouse gases

“Carbon‐dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life.” ‐ Competitive Enterprise Institute TV ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA

The Big Picture





What’s needed?

Source: NOAA (2010) 2009 State of the Climate – Highlights http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams‐state‐of‐the‐climate/2009.php

U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State of the Climate 2009

Independent records show warming trend

Source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509983main_adjusted_annual_temperature_anomalies_final.gif

Global Temps – Surface & Atmosphere

Source: US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-sfc-radiosonde-temp/201001-201012.gif

Source: NOAA (2010) 2009 State of the Climate – Highlights http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams‐state‐of‐the‐climate/2009.php

U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State of the Climate 2009

Rising sea‐levels ‐ CSIRO

Source: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Is it the sun? volcanos? ….?

Source: Lean, J.L. and Rind, D.H., (2008) "How Natural and Anthropogenic Influences Alter Global and Regional Surface Temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L18701, 16 September, pp. 6. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034864.shtml

Lenton et al. (2008) "Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System", Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of Amercia,Vol. 105, No. 6, 12 February, pp. 1786-1793.

Tipping Points in the Climate System

Who will you trust? Strong statements affirming the reality of human contribution to climate change have been released by the National Academies of Science of: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the US and UK.

There’s ‘scientists’ & scientists. Would you ask a plumber to build your kitchen cabinets? Would you ask a GP to do your heart surgery?

When asked “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 97% of scientists with more than 50% of published research papers on climate change said ‘Yes’. Doran, P.T. and Zimmerman, M.K., (2009) "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90, No. 3, 20 January, pp. 22-23.http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Where are the published models that say ‘No problem’?

The Big Picture





What’s needed?

Source: UNEP, (2009) Climate in Peril: A Popular Guide to the Latest IPCC Reports, GRID‐Arendal & SMI Books: Arendal, Norway & United Nations Environment Program: Nairobi, Kenya, p. 26.

Temperatures Projections 1000‐2100

Two separate considerations for risk management:

1. Scale of the threat

2. Urgency of the threat

European heatwave 2003 …

Source: Stott, P.A., Stone, D.A. and Allen, M.R., (2004) "Human Contribution to the European Heatwave of 2003", Nature, Vol. 432, No. 7017, 2 December, pp. 610‐614.

European heatwave 2003 …

Where are we heading?

Some global impacts projected for changes in climate

Source: IPCC, (2007) "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"; Technical Summary, Figure TS.9, p. 43. ‘Pre-industrial’ temperature scale added.

1

0.5 1 2 3 54 5.5ºCGlobal mean annual temperature change relative to 1850-1899 ‘pre-industrial’ average (ºC)

Source: UNEP, (2009) Climate in Peril: A Popular Guide to the Latest IPCC Reports, GRID-Arendal & SMI Books: Arendal, Norway & United Nations Environment Program: Nairobi, Kenya, p. 35.

Projections for Australia & NZ

Coastal vulnerability Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (2011) Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast, Canberra. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/publications/coastline/climate‐change‐risks‐to‐australias‐coasts.aspx


Projections for Africa


Projections for Asia

Food Security Outlook

Source: Battisti, D.S. and Naylor, R.L., (2009) "Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat", Science, Vol. 323, No. 5911, 9 January, pp. 240‐244. (Slide from Schellnhuber, (2011) Strange Encounters behind the 2°C Firewall: The Global Picture

Australia’s Garnaut Report

“On a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation on climate change mitigation would lead to consequences that would haunt humanity until the end of time.”

The Big Picture





What’s needed?

Source: Garnaut, R., (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p. 154.

Australia’s emissions per person

Australia’s coal exports in 2007‐08: 252 million tonnes (Mt), which produce about 740 Mt CO2

Sources: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, http://cait.wri.org/ABARES, http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares99001762/ACS_2010_part2.pdf

Australia’s total contributions

Australia’s total contribution: 401 + 740 = 1115 Mt (approximately)FY2009‐10: 292 Mt black coal= about 858 Mt CO2

The Big Picture





What’s needed?

Source: Garnaut, R., (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p. 208.

Mitigation – the 450 ppm path

Source: Garnaut, R., (2011) The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne & New York, xx + 221 pp. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/

Australia’s emissions trends

Source: AustralianGovernment (2008) Australia’s Low Pollution Future., p. xii.

Would strong cuts would kill our economy?

Source: AustralianGovernment (2008) Australia’s Low Pollution Future., pp. xii & Australian Government, (2008) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future, White Paper, 2 vols; Canberra, Australian Government, December. 4-9.

Does the reference case include the economic consequences of letting climate change run its course? No.

“The Treasury work did not include the impacts of climate change or the benefits of mitigation”

White Paper, p. 4-9.

How to guarantee mitigation looks like a net cost

Who are the extremists? Can’t say whether a response is ‘responsible’ & ‘measured’ as opposed to ‘extreme’ & ‘reckless’ without considering scale and urgency of the threat.

• Eg. Response to invasion fleet? Is failure to mobilise ‘measured & responsible’ or reckless?

Who are the ‘extremists’?

• Those arguing we should consider making a fraction of the effort of the WWII generation to avert a likely irreversible global catastrophe? OR

• Those content to flip a coin to see how we go with more than 2°C warming? (450 parts per million CO2‐eq path gives about 50% chance of staying under 2°C) OR

• Those happy to do nothing and chance the luck of their grandchildren with whatever the opposite of an ice‐age looks like, with a 4 to 7°C rise?

(5% below 2000 levels by 2020 is on path likely to give 3‐4+ °C warming by 2100.

Muchmore expensive for next generation to rein it in.)

Conclusion: How will we be remembered? Under strongest government target (24% below 1990 by 2020):

• “Cost”: 1.1% annual real per capita GNP growth to 2050 instead of 1.2%. So we wait until 2054 to be as rich as we would have been in 2050.

• Australians on average $27,600 ( or 55%) richer than 2008 by 2050

In 1942‐43, a previous generation was spending equivalent to 40% of national income fighting World War II.

Our leaders are still treating climate change like a moderately significant economic reform, not a national and global emergency.

Our children and the poor will pay the price.

Surely we can do better.

ResourcesIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch

Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org

Climate Denial Crock of the Week http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Skeptical science http://www.skepticalscience.com

Q&As on climate change http://tinyurl.com/BPClimateFAQ

Ian Enting on Plimer http://tinyurl.com/PlimerErrors

Climate Action Network Australia http://www.cana.net.au

My pages: http://www.brettparris.com/climate‐change/

http://tinyurl.com/BPClimateFAQ

Slides for questions

The Greenhouse Effect

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Q. How do we know CO2 is contributing?Water vapour absorbs strongly near 6.3 μm & 2.7 μm & also at wavelengths greater than 18 μm. CO2 absorbs around 4.3 μm, only weakly between 8-12 μm and most strongly in the 13-17 μm zone, centred on 15 μm right near the peak of the longwave radiation spectrum From about 7.7 - 12 μm, the so called 'atmospheric window', absorption by water vapour and CO2 is weak and other trace gases such as ozone (peak around 9.6 μm), methane (7.7 μm) and nitrous oxide (7.8 μm) absorb more strongly, despite low concentrations.

Cherry‐picking data

Source: Mann, M.E., et al. (2008) "Proxy-based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 36, 9 September, pp. 13252-13257. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract

Temperatures 1000‐2000

Q. Isn’t the current change within the bounds of natural climate change?

Yes for temperature, but rate of greenhouse gas accumulation may be unprecedented.

• But – so what?

• Does that mean it’s OK? No. Sea levels 70 metres higher in the past, temps much higher, oceans oxygen‐depleted – mass extinctions.

• Past natural warmings do not mean this one is natural! Do bushfire investigators automatically rule out arson just because many fires are started naturally by lightning? Of course not!

Q: Isn’t the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unreliable? No.

• IPCC isn’t a ‘small group of UN scientists’

• IPCC doesn’t do its own research – it distills and assesses the published, peer‐reviewed scientific literature over previous years

• IPCC is as reliable as the peer‐reviewed scientific literature ‐ 10s of thousands of papers published by independent scientists in the top scientific journals.

• A couple of errors in more than 3000 pages of reports.

• IPCC summaries approved line‐by‐line by governments (including major fossil fuel exporters & users such as the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China & Australia)

• There is no major struggle within the scientific community about the causes of climate change, despite media impressions.

Q: Aren’t climate models unreliable?

A: No• You can’t say anythingmuch about a complex system without a model –even saying CO2 has no effect. How do they know?

• They’re by no means perfect, but reliable enough.

• There’s not just one model but a dozen or more models produced independently by different research institutes and while they may disagree on the details (eg. will how much will rainfall change in a particular region), they all agree it’s going to get significantly warmer unless greenhouse gas emissions are reined in.

Increasing resolution of climate models

Source: Garnaut, R., (2011) The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Melbourne & New York, xx + 221 pp. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/

Q. Why should we act first?A. Australia is in no danger of leading

Infrastructure challenges Heat stress – eg. Melbourne’s rail network during heatwaves – much infrastructure not built to tolerate 50+ C°

Storm & cyclone damage

Financing – increasing difficulties financing carbon‐intensive investments; ‘fragile’ asset values

Insufficient skilled workers

Electricity grid:• adaptation to smart grid• more diverse mix of power sources• conversion of much of vehicle fleet to electric increasing demand

Source: Garnaut, R., (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p. 247.Meinshausen, M., (2006) "<2°C Trajectories - a Brief Background Note", Paper presented at the KyotoPlus Conference, 28-29 September, Berlin, 11 pp. http://www2.kyotoplus.org/uploads/meinshausen_fin_rev.pdf

Emissions levels & temperatures

Uncertainties & risks

Major areas of (downside) uncertainty still exist in the science:• the average surface temperature change induced by a doubling of CO2, • the dynamics of the ice sheets, • the possibilities of large volumes of methane being released from melting

Arctic permafrost and methane deposits below the ocean floors.

Uncertainty in the economics:• Economic models not good at modelling interactions between innovation,

uncertainty, extreme events, financial and asset markets.

• The base‐case projections for GDP growth under the scenario of doing nothing and allowing climate change to run its course may seriously underestimate the cumulative losses to GDP from drought, floods, heatwaves, fires, storm surges and extreme weather events by 2050.

parris presentation

Business