Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Last Updated: 2:47 PM GMT on May 16, 2013 — Last Comment: 1:30 AM GMT on May 24, 2013

	Integrated Impacts of Climate Change

Posted by: RickyRood, 1:14 PM GMT on April 29, 2009

Climate Policy Interface: All the Impacts Together

In the last two blogs, I wrote about which impacts of climate change might or might not accelerate the formation of policy. One of the points I was trying to make is that taken in isolation, an issue such as the impact of climate change on agriculture might seem “manageable.” We have many strategies for addressing agricultural problems, managed irrigation, multiple crop choices, the ability to hybridize, perhaps even genetically modify seeds. Again, in isolation, we have strategies of engineering, policy, and technology that allow us to develop a strategy to adapt.

Another point that was, at least, implicit: There are a number of ways to look at an impact. One might be in an absolute sense; that is, what are the direct impacts of climate change on, say, the ability to water crops in eastern Montana? Or northern Argentina? Another way to look at the problem is based on economic impact. The point was that while the impact might be very large locally, in the aggregate across all of the economy, the impact may seem smaller. We can trade and adapt.

In the field of climate change there is a type of model called the integrated assessment model. The ambition of these models is to evaluate the impact of climate change on multiple sectors of the economy; for example, the models produce estimates of greenhouse gas emissions; the impact on agriculture of both climate change and our decisions on biofuels. This is, obviously, an enormous task, and it is not based on a physical system as well defined as the climate. Integrated assessment models are one of the tools that motivate thinking about policy; they are a tool to understand balance of policy options.

The question I originally posed was: What are the impacts that might motivate the development of policy? Usually the first time I pose this questions the answers are agriculture, public health, ecosystems, and water. When posed after some discussion, the answer is often national security caused by international instability, which comes from the integrated impact on economies and dislocation of people. The dislocation of people is largely related to sea level rise.

The other issues are climate change turning into economic opportunity, the legacy that we leave for our grandchildren, and water.

The predictions that the average surface temperature will rise and that sea level will rise are robust. We will have to adapt to this. There will be disruption. The question arises about whether or not we can develop and pursue an effective mitigation policy remains open.

r

View (11) Comments For This Post

Permalink | A A A

	Climate Policy Interface: Analysis

Posted by: RickyRood, 9:23 PM GMT on April 12, 2009

Climate Policy Interface: Analysis

In my last entry I posed a simple poll. What impacts attributed to climate change do you think will be the policy motivators? In general most of the “first” answers focus around agriculture, public health, and water resources.

A few years ago I was listening to a talk by the economist Robert Mendelsohn. The talk was about how farmers in South America might respond to climate change – basic adaptation. In became clear in the talk that in a “developed” nation, like the U.S., agriculture was considered, mostly, insensitive to climate change. There were several reasons for this perceived insensitivity. These reasons ranged from our ability to provide protection of, for example, cattle from the environment, to move the cattle around, and that feed was a commodity, and if you looked across the world as a whole, feed would be available. This insensitivity to climate change helped to define my thinking on several problems of potential climate change impacts.

If you look into the literature of climate change and public health or the literature of climate change and agriculture, you will find a wide range of analyses and conclusions. Compared with, for example, the science of the physical climate is far less contentious – far less. Here are some ideas for analysis.

Existing Problem: Environmental parameters already stress agriculture and public health and cause a wide range of problems. Therefore, it is not the case that climate change “causes” these problems. In many cases we anticipate that climate change will amplify existing stresses. Some stresses will be lessened. Every analysis I have seen concludes, strongly, that the costs associated with amplified stresses will far outweigh the benefits from lessened stresses.

The fact that these are existing problems has several implications. First, it means that there is an existing community focused on the problem. There are strategies for addressing the problem. Therefore, the first response is often how does one build increased capacity into the existing capability? Second, the existence of a community means that there is an existing core of knowledge, and most likely, the community has evolved thinking in how to address climate change. Often what they need to know is - will extreme events become more extreme and will they become more frequent? (A possibly interesting aside: This week Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction gave the AOSS Spencer Lecture. In his historical overview of forecasting he said that when he started in forecasting it was policy to “not predict” extreme events because it was assumed that models could not predict other than average events. The world and models have changed.)

Climate change stress on these problems also sits in relation to problems of population and demand.

Engineering and Technology: If one examines, for example, water resources or heat waves, one is immediately faced with the fact that climate change pales in the face of our ability to engineer solutions. For example, in most of the U.S. water resources are controlled by policy and engineering, such as canals and dams. The real question of climate change is will it change the basic background state – that’s a different blog. Heat waves are best met by, for example, air conditioning, cooling centers, and engineering cities with parks and green roofs and materials to reduce the urban intensification of heat.

Social Capacity: Problems such as heat waves are often best addressed by warnings, preparation, and education. That is, if people and first responders are educated about heat and what to do, given warning, and are able to prepare, then the impact of the heat wave can be reduced or eliminated. This is a specific example of building in the ability to respond or to adapt. The use of warnings, preparation and education is often the first line of response so that the environmental impact does not come out of the blue.

Climate Change” Climate change does not have a simple cause and effect with these impacts and response to these impacts. For example, mitigation of climate, meaning the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, will not directly affect these impacts for many, many years. Therefore, directly addressing impacts is drawn to building adaptive capacity instead of controlling carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, I conclude that relying upon impacts to motivate the development on policy on carbon dioxide emissions is a relatively weak motivation. The first line of response is, logically, to address issues of technology, engineering and social capacity.

Where does this leave us? What are the impacts that might motivate the development of policy?

----

As my devoted and attentive readers will recall in this blog I said that the next big climate story would be about the reduction of CO2 emissions due to the recession. Here it starts. USAToday: Bad economy helps cut CO2 emissions. I would take issue that it is an “unexpected benefit.” Also I don’t know why there is a reference to “milder weather” in the article.
----

From last time: What color is the sky? Carolina Blue.

r

View (117) Comments For This Post

Updated: 12:03 AM GMT on April 13, 2009

Permalink | A A A

	Climate Policy Interface Question 1

Posted by: RickyRood, 2:24 AM GMT on April 03, 2009

It is the time of year in my class where I am giving my scientist view of policy options for managing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That means, I spend some time thinking about the viability of the carbon market. (For any of you who pay attention to my various wikis, like for my class and other things, they were all "devastated" yesterday. Recovery unclear.) You can see some of my thinking over at climatepolicy.org

I have been running a poll in class for the last four years and in all of the public lectures I give. Some of you may recall this idea that I introduced called a policy catalyst; that is, something to motivate the convergence of all the factors that need to come together for policy to happen. This follows from the idea that scientific investigation produces both knowledge and uncertainty about the knowledge. The uncertainty can always be used to keep policy from converging, unless there is some otherwise compelling reason for the policy to be made. That compelling reason is what I call the policy motivator or catalyst. (I am waiting for a political scientist to improve my thinking on this.) (More on Science Policy Interface)

The poll is simple. What do you think will be the policy motivators? I ask the question at least twice over the course of class or a lecture. The nature of the first round of answers is generally in the spirit of the following. Action on climate change will be motivated by the impact of climate change on:

- Human Health, disease transmission and extreme weather

- Agriculture, the ability to grow food

- Water resources, the need for water to drink and to farm

- Sea level rise, the threat to coastal cities

- Economy, threats to the economy from the above

There are others. I know that I don't usually get a lot of answers to direct questions on this blog, but I keep trying. What do you think will be the motivators that help the development of climate change policy?

----

A number of people who write in the blog comments say that they are sharpening their arguments. This past weekend I was listening to a show called Intelligence Squared U.S. (You might wonder about the exciting edgy life I lead.) This is a debate show, and I recommend the episode Is Reducing Carbon Emissions Worth the Cost?. I am not going to tell you the results of this debate. All I will tell you, is that neither side of the debate anchored their arguments on whether or not the science of climate change was valid. If you want to think about honing arguments, listen to this.

----

What if I did a poll about the Final Four. What color is the sky?

Is it just me, or is the economy starting to look a little better?

Just full of questions.

r

View (123) Comments For This Post

Permalink | A A A