Holy f!&$%# talking on national radio is nerve-wracking...
(especially when your fellow radio guests are climate gurus @KHayhoe and @KenCaldeira!)
Blanked a few times there, but fun discussion nonetheless.
There’s so much more to say about this, so thread coming soon...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira OK, in the same vain as my previous thread “Should I cut out meat and dairy for the climate?” (bit.ly/2TJQh2l), it seems like the time is now right for a NEW THREAD:
“Should I stop flying for the climate?”
Here're my 2 cents... BUCKLE UP!
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira 1/ First, let’s acknowledge (own?) some ‘problems’ with #FlyingLess. As @drvox implies in this long thread, an individual's decision to fly will add an INFINITESSIMALLY SMALL amount of CO2 to the atmosphere (akin to adding a pebble of sand to a beach):
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox 2/ In other words... WE WILL NOT SOLVE THE CLIMATE MITIGATION PUZZLE through individual action. We ultimately need COLLECTIVE-SCALE changes (to business-as-usual capitalism): regulating corporations; pricing incentives; smart investments; good policy! bit.ly/2PjDLrZ
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox 3/ As @MichaelEMann points out in the above article, there’s also a DANGER in placing the onus for change on consumers (instead of CORPORATIONS, decision-makers, etc.)... that's a potential outcome when people become FIXATED on their carbon 'lifestyles'.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann 4/ Another problem: Only a small % of the population are responsible for the bulk of aviation emissions. Most people don’t fly, or just once/year. So there’s a danger in coming across as “preachy” to EVERYONE, when in fact it’s (usually) the WEALTHIEST few who are the problem.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann 5/ Aviation offers tremendous benefits and opportunities which a majority of world hasn't experienced. As @arvindpawan1 has pointed out, there’s a risk that #FlyingLess takes on an IMPERIALIST tone (if it fails to differentiate WHO it’s asking to change). bit.ly/2MpQtmF
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 6/ And another challenge (in some geographical contexts): There are sometimes NO VIABLE low-carbon alternatives to flying. This is a REAL PROBLEM in Canada, where LONG-DISTANCE train travel is often WORSE than flying on a per-passenger basis!
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 7/ So.. #FlyingLess needs to tread carefully in its messaging. The research shows that if people feel ‘attacked’ or their identities called into question, it can result in a “boomerang effect” wherein they just return to their original behaviour. bit.ly/2MoR6Ni
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1 9/ Before we get to THE VALUE OF FLYING LESS, let’s talk about WHY aviation specifically is a PROBLEM. As @Peters_Glen has pointed out, at a global level aviation is only really a sliver of the CO2 pie...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 10/ BUT... CO2 is only PART of the problem. The world-leading authorities on aviation & climate (David Lee et al.) noted that in 2005 aviation was responsible for 4.9% of RADIATIVE FORCING. It’s 15 years later now, and that’s gonna be higher I’m sure...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 11/ 4.9% may not SOUND like a lot, but consider that only 6% of the world flies each year. That makes aviation an activity with an OUTSIZED impact (compared to, say, meat consumption - in which 95% of the world participates – at 14.5% of global GHGs). bit.ly/2HdM6a0
I wonder... what’s the carbon footprint of the ENTIRE AVIATION SUPPLY CHAIN?
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen OK, but isn’t TECHNOLOGY reducing aviation emissions? To an extent, yes. Biofuels (especially new gen. which don’t impact food supply); low-weight materials; baggage surcharges; improved air traffic ALL help. BUT these efficiency gains are being outstripped by DEMAND GROWTH.
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 14/ Right... but what about global governance? Doesn’t the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for Aviation (CORSIA) plan to achieve “carbon-neutral growth from 2020”? Yeah, about that...
@KHayhoe@KenCaldeira@drvox@MichaelEMann@arvindpawan1@Peters_Glen 15/ So... Despite its many benefits, aviation is PRESENTLY a real challenge for climate change mitigation – this may change in a few decades w electric ✈️, but as the IPCC has pointed out, we need to start rapid DECARBONIZATION NOW:
It's actually the subject of a fascinating and potentially morbid debate about the relationship between humans and Earth's biogeochemical cycles.
Thread🧵
2) One of the leading theories is that this dramatic decline in global CO2 concentrations was actually caused by the 'Great Dying' in the Americas - the mass mortality event caused by European viruses which wiped out 56 million Indigenous people of the "Americas"...
"The resulting near-cessation of farming across a continent and re-growth of Latin American forests and other vegetation removed enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce a pronounced dip in CO2 seen in Antarctic ice core records."
3) This theory was proposed by Mark Maslin and Simon Lewis about a decade ago in a Nature article titled "Defining the Anthropocene". They argued that this massive CO2 drop, caused by the Great Dying (and subsequent expansion of forests from abandoned human settlements), was a marker of the onset of The Anthropocene.
"In geological terms the 1610 drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide is also associated with the coolest period of the Little Ice Age – a period between about 1300 and 1870 when North America and Europe experienced colder winters – when many changes occurred in geological deposits worldwide. The boundary therefore also marks Earth’s last globally synchronous cool moment before the onset of the long-term global warmth of the Anthropocene."
Woah! Such an important study published in Nature today! Quick thread with some of their key figures!
🧵
2) The study makes an empirical estimate of the impact of global producer climate adaptations on yields of six staple crops spanning 12,658 regions, capturing two-thirds of global crop calories! It essentially tries to figure out not just how climate change will affect yields, but farmer adaptations as well!
3) “We project that adaptation and income growth alleviate 23% of global losses in 2050 and 34% at the end of the century (6% and 12%, respectively; moderate-emissions scenario), but substantial residual losses remain for all staples except rice.”
🧵Twelve conceptual 'problems' that make dealing with climate change super difficult:
1) The Small Numbers Problem: Heading for 2.7 degrees of warming? An increase of up to 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere? These numbers SOUND small to most people. In reality, these are absolutely *MASSIVE* changes for Earth over such a relatively short period.
2) The Domestic-International Responsibility Problem: At the national level, policymakers say their country contributes only a small share, so their actions won’t make a difference. Yet at the international level, action can only be genuinely enforced through nation-states.
🧵Thread with a few zingers from this January’s report on climate risk by the Actuaries…
[h/t @James7jackson and @AndrewsonEarth]
“Commonly used ‘net zero’ budgets only give a 50/50 chance of limiting warming to well below 2°C. Put another way, the chance of them failing to limit warming is as high as the chance of them limiting warming.”
“Damages already outweigh the mitigation costs required to limit global warming to 2°C, i.e., it will be overwhelmingly positive economically to limit global warming”
Gulp… “The rate of natural sequestration of CO2from the atmosphere by the terrestrial biosphere peaked in 2008. Atmospheric concentrations will rise more rapidly than previously, in proportion to annual CO2emissions, as natural sequestration is now declining by 0.25% per year.”
“This analysis confirms that the rate of natural sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere by the terrestrial biosphere is now declining, having reached a peak in 2008”… “This effect will accelerate climate change”
If this is true, it would mark a catastrophic future given current rates of anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions. There is, however, another view about the trend in the land sink in recent years:
Each year, Arctic Sea Ice Extent reaches a low point in September. But over the last 15 years or so, the September minimum extent *appears* to have plateaued...
🧵Thread on this why this is happening, and how it's hiding catastrophic changes...
2) To be clear, the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is still declining. At this very moment it is at record low levels (which is deeply alarming given that it's currently experiencing a La Niña Winter)... but the RATE of Sea Ice Extent decline *is* indeed slowing down.
3) The reason why the rate of change is slowing is because the ice is getting thinner. NASA explains: The Arctic Ocean has "already lost most of its old ice and two-thirds of its thickness. [So] The younger ice is thinning more slowly and variably."