Polar Ice Melting Spurs Interest in Climate Stabilization

Commentary by John C. Topping, Jr., President, Climate Institute

In the last few weeks several credible scientific studies have indicated that glacial melting in both Greenland and the Antarctic is occurring much more rapidly than had been previously anticipated. If this trend persists as seems likely, the consequences may be profound, not just for future generations, but also for many who are adults today. Sizable swaths of coastline may be inundated in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Texas. The New York metropolitan area, already vulnerable to severe storms, may suffer great damage, as may such cities as London, Amsterdam, Shanghai, and Jakarta. Millions are likely to be displaced in the Pearl River Delta of China, the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, the Nile Delta of Egypt, the entire coast of Bangladesh, and much of Java and Sumatra. Well before the end of this century entire island nations such as the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Niue in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean may be uninhabitable as a result of inundation or destruction of their fresh water resources from saltwater intrusion. Although few Caribbean island nations are likely to be fully submerged during this time frame from this accelerated sea level rise, several may see their economic viability shredded by the combined threat of heightened storm surge and increased intensity of hurricanes.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) released in November 2004 had identified a rapid warming underway in the Arctic and pointed out that it might have grave implications for coastal areas in populous industrial countries. Particularly telling was an illustration in the Synthesis Report of ACIA (PDF; see p.6) showing effects on Florida of a one-meter rise in sea level. In the past few weeks, evidence has accumulated that such a sea level rise may occur before the end of this century. A study published in a recent issue of Science indicated that over the past five years the movement of glaciers in Southern Greenland to the ocean has doubled to an annual rate of about eight miles. Another study published March 3 in Science indicated that Antarctica is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice each year. Well before the publication of these two new studies evidence was mounting that the IPCC Third Assessment in its projection of plausible ranges of global sea level rise may have seriously underestimated the magnitude by allowing little net rise due to Greenland or Antarctic glacial melt.

Knowledgeable observers have long viewed the melting or disintegration of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers as a ticking time bomb that could ultimately wreak havoc on human civilization, although probably over many generations or centuries. Eleven years ago Nancy Wilson, Editor of Climate Alert, prepared a remarkably insightful Special Report discussing the potential for a disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and its implications for the much more voluminous East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Her interview with Terence Hughes, a University of Maine scientist expert on Antarctica, has him likening the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to the popping of a cork holding back the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ultimately a de-glaciation of Greenland and Antarctica would produce a rise in global sea levels of almost 80 meters or about 265 feet. Although this would likely stretch out over centuries or even millennia, it would be very hard to reverse as it gathered momentum.

Yet even the near and medium term consequences of accelerated sea level rise are profound for many island nations and for countries such as the United States with gradually sloping coastlines such as on the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. A rise in global sea level of a meter may result in a shoreline retreat of a hundred or even a thousand times that magnitude. Moreover, the rise in sea level will almost certainly enhance risk to coastal areas from severe storms whose intensity may increase in a greenhouse-enhanced world. A wild card is the potential for a large shedding of Greenland ice to alter the fresh water-salt water mixing ratios in the North Atlantic Deep Water Formation that drives the conveyor belt redistributing heat around the world through ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream.

No country has been more focused on the threat of abrupt and irreversible climate change and accelerated sea level rise than the United Kingdom. This may be attributable to a variety of factors, among them the prominence of British scientists in international climate assessments, the strong support for nearly two decades of British politicians of all hues for climate protection, and perhaps the concern that a shift in ocean currents might wreak havoc with the UK’s climate. Sir Crispin Tickell, who worked closely with then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in vaulting climate change onto the international agenda, convened a meeting in April 2004 involving top British scientists, environmentalists and government planners to discuss contingency strategies to address abrupt climate change. In February 2005 a much larger gathering occurred at Exeter to examine the potential for high-end effects of climate change and to begin focus on stabilization of global greenhouse concentrations. Its report that was released in late January 2006 discussed possible tipping points toward abrupt or highly disruptive climate change.

Stabilization of Global Greenhouse Concentrations May Be Imperative for the Survival of Human Civilization

Until recently the idea of stabilizing global concentrations of greenhouse gases had seemed one of those distant goals that would ultimately be desirable to attain but need not seriously be pursued except in academic modeling scenarios. The Framework Convention on Climate Change does set an ambitious goal phrased as avoiding a “dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system” that seems to imply a stabilizing of global greenhouse concentrations at some yet to be defined point. In one sense the Kyoto Protocol, despite its ostensibly legally binding limitations, can be viewed as a significant retreat from the goals of the Framework Convention negotiated 5 1/2 years before. Lacking universality of coverage, even had the US and Australia chosen to participate, Kyoto does not aim toward a stabilization of global emissions let alone concentrations. Although stabilization of global concentrations would require a reduction by 2012, the end of its first “budget period” of about 60% below 1990 level greenhouse emissions, under the best of circumstances a sizable increase would occur. Moreover, Kyoto lacks any real enforcement mechanism, although the European Union may choose to apply some sanctions to its member states that miss its targets.

The mounting evidence that the climate system is beginning to veer in a very dangerous direction argues for a much more ambitious and imaginative framework than Kyoto and one with a much greater sense of time urgency. If we are to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” as envisioned by the Framework Convention humanity may not have the luxury of waiting to the middle or latter part of this century to stabilize global concentrations. That seems to be the growing consensus of climate experts and environmental campaigners in the United Kingdom who recently met with Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss how the UK might catalyze an effort toward “stabilisation” of global greenhouse concentrations.This meeting followed on the heels of a release a few weeks before of a book, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, for which Blair wrote the preface. [Order information]

In light of global population growth and industrialization, stabilization of global concentrations of greenhouse gases will require about a ten-fold reduction of carbon intensity though a blend of measures that might encompass increased energy efficiency, greater relative reliance on non-carbon or low carbon energy sources, and use of sequestration. At first glance daunting, this may be a fairly modest undertaking as compared to the revolution that has occurred in information technologies over the past half century. UNIVAC, the first commercial computer that was unveiled in 1951, required a team of scientists and engineers for it to function and cost many millions of dollars in current dollar terms. Today a laptop connected to the Internet could be operated by a child and would have thousands of times the computer power of UNIVAC at a tiny fraction of the cost. Six years ago the Climate Institute and several partner groups convened a Seattle Summit on Protecting the World’s Climate to examine how lessons from the information revolution could be adapted to help catalyze a global clean energy revolution. Its theme is distilled in a video on this site.

This year on the occasion of its 20th Anniversary the Climate Institute is convening a Washington Summit on Climate Stabilization. The two-day meeting September 19-20 at Loew’s L’Enfant Plaza Hotel will begin with a Scientific Symposium on Tipping Points Toward Abrupt Climate Change and Measures to Avert Reaching Them. The second day will focus on leadership examples in moving toward climate stabilization. This includes leadership within the industrial and finance sectors, the burgeoning climate neutral movement within religious groups and universities, and innovative initiatives within island nations, other developing country states and pioneering states and cities in North and South alike. A comprehensive vision does not yet exist for stabilizing global greenhouse gas concentrations, but strands of it are emerging in some unusual areas:

• The breakthrough of hybrid electric vehicles from specialty niche markets for early adapter greens to become profitable vehicles in a mainstream market. Eartheasy

• Rapid progress by Goldman Sachs as it has moved into wind generation with hundreds of megawatts already on line or under development.

• Iceland’s aggressive effort to move to a hydrogen, hydro and geothermal-based economy by 2030.

• The decision by several small island states to move toward a renewable based economy.

• Sweden’s decision to seek to phase out its reliance on petroleum fuels by 2020.

• The promulgation of an Executive Order by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger committing his state to what amounts to about a 93% per capita emissions cut by 2050.

An Imaginative Adaptation and Emergency Response Strategy Must Be Put in Place as We Work for Stabilization

Given the momentum of the climate system and the even greater momentum of sea level change, we have already bought into some significant warming and some sizable sea level rise. Although some scientific uncertainties exist, we can state with a high degree of confidence that storm surge will be a greater risk in East and Gulf Coast communities as sea levels rise. It also seems likely that we will see more severe hurricanes and that rainfall from even moderate intensity hurricanes is likely to increase in a greenhouse-enhanced world.

We will never know whether any particular hurricane, flood, drought or heat wave was attributable to global warming or whether it might have happened anyway. All the science can say with some degree of confidence is that the statistical likelihood of the occurrence of some weather related events is likely to change as the world warms. We know, however, that we will experience severe storms, floods and droughts and that some parts of the US and the world are especially vulnerable to one or another of these weather related phenomena. Intelligent anticipatory response strategies are necessary to address climate variability and most of these measures are also at the core of a proactive climate change response strategy. As became clear in the Hurricane Katrina tragedy the United States is not particularly well equipped to address extreme weather events. The failures at the Federal level were compounded by bumbling at other levels of government and distrust and miscommunication among key decisionmakers. As the markedly better success in Florida in 2004 in responding to four hurricanes that ravaged the state showed an effective public/private partnership as embodied in the Florida Hurricane Alliance coordinated by Florida International University can facilitate the response. Observers outside the United States should not be too complacent about their ability to respond to severe weather events or other catastrophes. Katrina should be seen less as the metaphor for a peculiarly American social or racial divide, as some pundits have been quick to opine, and more as an indication of how vulnerable modern industrial society can be to catastrophic events in the absence of foresighted response strategies. London, Prague, Budapest and many other great cities could face weather related devastation; the Dutch resilience and agility in response were born out of a sad historical experience costing thousands of lives.

The Washington unveiling a few days ago of Protecting America, a public private partnership to develop comprehensive efforts to mitigate potential damage from disasters such as severe storms, floods and earthquakes, is particularly heartening. The two Co-chairs of this effort are James Lee Witt, who earned high marks for his leadership of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1993-2001, and Retired Admiral James Loywho has served as both Commandant of the Coast Guard and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Bankrolled largely by insurance companies and mortgage lenders, this new partnership also involves firefighters, emergency preparedness officials and other “first responders.” It focuses both on proactive, well-coordinated responses to potential disasters, but also on measures such as improved building codes and siting measures that can limit losses. Even a country as wealthy as the United States cannot readily sustain the financial cost of continual Katrina-scale disasters. This new effort takes a leaf from Florida’s playbook; after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 Florida committed several million dollars of surplus funds that had been raised for Andrew relief to create the International Hurricane Research Center to identify how building codes might be improved and measures taken to limit damage from future hurricanes. Florida’s relative success in limiting damage from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne and Ivan in 2004 was in some sense a dividend from this earlier investment.

Ultimately if we are to avoid triage of many island nations, much of South Florida and coastal Louisiana, and countless great coastal cities around the world, loss of most of our recreational beaches, and widespread devastation of our forest land through fire and pestilence, we will need to devise and implement some ingenious response strategies. They will almost certainly include the development of cost competitive desalinization as saltwater intrusion into fresh water supplies may threaten island nations and Florida well before major centers succumb to inundation. Low-tech approaches such as planting of vetiver grass may protect beaches and roads from being washed away by severe storms and rains. Mangrove planting in some coastal regions may prove a buffer against large-scale loss of life from severe storms. Development of cultivars that are pest resistant and efficient in use of water may safeguard millions from climate change induced famine.

Leveraging Intergenerational and International Equity Concerns to Fashion a Solution

Climate change and associated sea level rise pose serious ethical challenges. Emissions generated today will have ascending adverse effects on generations yet to be born. Likewise many of the countries most affected by climate change or sea level rise are small island states whose per capita and total emissions are quite small. Even in industrial countries such as the United States weather related disasters are likely to affect the poor more than others. The likely social injustice inherent in disruptive climate change was a central theme of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in their Statement on Global Warming issued in 2001.The very powerful and recently released film, The Great Warming, highlights this theme. Rev. Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, stresses the importance of “Creation Care” — preserving the environment for future generations. He notes:

Because God doesn’t intend to ask me, “Rich, how did I create the Earth?” He won’t ask me that. He’ll say “Rich, what did you do to protect that which I created? ” And that is an awesome question that deserves a good answer.

There is a natural link between the Creation Care, Social Justice and individual personal accountability themes of our major faiths that may impel believers of many diverse theological perspectives to support efforts abroad such as energy transformation efforts in small island nations or coastal protection efforts in both island states and low lying nations such as Bangladesh and Indonesia. The recently launched Endangered Islands Campaign seeks to link island nations that are pioneering in innovative approaches to climate protection with research and technical institutions abroad and university and religious groups that are encouraging carbon offsets as a sign of their ethical or religious commitment. Ultimately success in achieving a stabilization of global greenhouse gas concentrations may be realized both through entrepreneurial innovation and through individuals recognizing the wisdom of Walt Kelly’s possum, Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us” and then acting through their faith or ethical perspectives to right themselves with future generations and their own Creator or conscience.