Tag Archives: climate change

increase in tidal flooding events

Leave a reply

Climate Central has this graphic predicting increases in average annual coastal flooding events in U.S. cities. It’s a little hard to read accurately, but what caught my eye is the increase from something like 20 now in my native Philadelphia to something like 75 in 2035. That is pretty big and pretty soon. I think we will manage to protect ourselves, either physically or through insurance, from changes of this magnitude that happen gradually. But it will cost money and resources that will then not be available to spend on other critical needs. So unless our income and wealth are growing faster than these impacts, we are going to be getting gradually poorer and poorer as we deal with these changes.

Source: Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coastal-flooding-us-cities-18148

Source: Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coastal-flooding-us-cities-18148

National Geographic on the California drought

Leave a reply

Here is National Geographic weighing in on snowpack, drought, and climate change in the western U.S.:

As in most of the rest of the American West, fortunes depend less on how much precipitation falls from the sky than how much of it falls as snow and how long that snow stays in the mountains. Despite the occasional severe winters, western snowpacks have declined in recent decades, and key researchers expect the trend to accelerate. “Warmer winters are reducing the amount of snow stored in the mountains, and they’re causing snowpacks to melt earlier in the spring,” says Philip Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University. Shrinking snowpacks and earlier snowmelts mean—in practical terms—that the region faces a persistent and worsening drought.

They talk about the parallels with Australia, which has faced similar issues and seemingly handled them better:

Australia’s Big Dry, a decade-long drought that began around the start of this century, led at first to the same kind of political bickering heard recently in California. But after years of environmental destruction, urban water stress, and great suffering by many dryland farmers, Australian politicians—and farmers—took some serious risks. “At the peak of the drought, it became very apparent that the environment doesn’t lie,” says Mike Young, a professor at the University of Adelaide who was active in the country’s drought response. Australia reduced urban water use by investing billions in conservation, education, and efficiency improvements. Most important, it began to reform the old water allocation system, which, like California’s, had promised specific amounts of water to rights holders. The country instituted a system that guaranteed a minimum supply of water for the environment, then divided the remainder into shares that could be quickly sold and traded—or stored for the next season. Farmers fought the changes, but with a financial incentive to use less water, they soon got more creative and more efficient. Water use dropped, and though consumption has risen since the drought eased in 2010, it remains below pre-drought levels in towns and cities.

I wonder if any other cultures have ever dealt with something like this. From Wikipedia:

Ancient Pueblo peoples, Ancestral Pueblo peoples, or Ancestral Puebloans were an ancient Native American culture centered on the present-day Four Corners area of the United States, comprising southern Utah, northeastern Arizona, northern New Mexico, and southwestern Colorado.[1] They lived in a range of structures, including pit houses, pueblos, and cliff dwellings designed so that they could lift entry ladders during enemy attacks, which provided security. Archaeologists sometimes refer to the unique set of material culture remains as “Anasazi”, although the term is not preferred by contemporary Pueblo peoples and often loosely used as a name for the occupants…

After approximately 1150, North America experienced significant climatic change in the form of a 300-year drought called the Great Drought. This also led to the collapse of the Tiwanaku civilization around Lake Titicaca in present-day Bolivia.[22] The contemporary Mississippian culture also collapsed during this period…

In this later period, the Pueblo II became more self-contained, decreasing trade and interaction with more distant communities. Southwest farmers developed irrigation techniques appropriate to seasonal rainfall, including soil and water control features such as check dams and terraces. The population of the region continued to be mobile, abandoning settlements and fields under adverse conditions. Along with the change in precipitation patterns, there was a drop in water table levels due to a different cycle unrelated to rainfall. This forced the abandonment of settlements in the more arid or over-farmed locations.[citation needed]

Evidence suggests a profound change in religion in this period. Chacoan and other structures constructed originally along astronomical alignments, and thought to have served important ceremonial purposes to the culture, were systematically dismantled. Doorways were sealed with rock and mortar. Kiva walls show marks from great fires set within them, which probably required removal of the massive roof – a task which would require significant effort. Habitations were abandoned, tribes split and divided and resettled far elsewhere.

Uh oh, so it looks like times got a little crazy, and people started burning stuff down. Hopefully we can do better than this. From what I know, this was a fairly urban, densely settled, agricultural civilization. When water got scarce, they probably just dispersed. Back then, there was a fair amount of open space to disperse in. I’m not so sure that is going to work for us, unless we are talking about spaceships.

By the way, if you happen to be interested in a story where a whole civilization goes crazy and starts burning shit down, try this:
Nightfall

By the way, this is a novel based on a short story old enough to be in the public domain, which someone has posted online here.

Steven Koonin – climate science not settled

Leave a reply

Steven Koonin has written an article in the Wall Street Journal called Climate Science Is Not Settled. According to his bio at the end,

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

If I can paraphrase and oversimplify, he thinks that climate science is still too uncertain to make any decisions other than investments in “low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.” And lots more research, of course. Here is a short passage:

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

You don’t want legitimate scientists with alternative viewpoints to be censored or silenced, so it’s good to read through something like this and draw your own conclusions, while keeping in mind an overwhelming majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that the science is certain enough, and the potential consequences serious enough, to justify action now. His last argument makes no sense to the engineer in me at all, that we shouldn’t try to make projections now using our best understanding of the physical relationships in the system, that we just have to wait until there are changes large enough that we can measure them. If we always did that the entire fields of science, engineering and technology would pretty much grind to a halt, and the rest of our civilization with them.

Robert Shiller on the new normal

Leave a reply

Here’s Robert Shiller in Project Syndicate talking about the “new normal” of slow economic growth:

There is a name for the despair that has been driving discontent – and not only in Russia and Ukraine – since the financial crisis. That name is the “new normal,” referring to long-term diminished prospects for economic growth, a term popularized by Bill Gross, a founder of bond giant PIMCO.

The despair felt after 1937 led to the emergence of similar new terms then, too. “Secular stagnation,” referring to long-term economic malaise, is one example. The word secular comes from the Latin saeculum, meaning a generation or a century. The word stagnation suggests a swamp, implying a breeding ground for virulent dangers. In the late 1930s, people were also worrying about discontent in Europe, which had already powered the rise of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

The other term that suddenly became prominent around 1937 was “underconsumptionism” – the theory that fearful people may want to save too much for difficult times ahead. Moreover, the amount of saving that people desire exceeds the available investment opportunities. As a result, the desire to save will not add to aggregate saving to start new businesses, construct and sell new buildings, and so forth. Though investors may bid up prices of existing capital assets, their attempts to save only slow down the economy.

“Secular stagnation” and “underconsumptionism” are terms that betray an underlying pessimism, which, by discouraging spending, not only reinforces a weak economy, but also generates anger, intolerance, and a potential for violence.

So this is the old “animal spirits” argument. There is almost never commentary from economists or financiers about the possibility of ecological limits having something to do with this. There are two ways ecological limits could manifest themselves. One is by making us gradually poorer through high prices of food, energy, and various raw materials. That could happen slowly and gradually, be obscured by the ups and downs of business/credit cycles and geopolitics, and not be obvious until it is too late. We could theoretically innovate our way out of the problem, but there might be a downward spiral where as we get poorer and poorer, we devote less effort to innovation and more to making ends meet. The second way ecological limits could manifest themselves would be through a sudden, catastrophic tipping point or climate shift. This would be a point where supplies of food, energy, water, and critical raw materials get so tight they cause a catastrophic breakdown of the systems of civilization, rather than just high prices. Of course, if you are poor enough, high prices and system breakdown have roughly the same consequences for you and your family. If you are rich enough, you can withstand the former just fine, but not the latter.

my favorite non-fiction books

Leave a reply

Somebody asked me recently for a list of my favorite non-fiction books. It was tough to come up with a short list, but I came up with one based on two criteria – they had to have a significant effect on my mental model of the world, and more importantly they had to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. So, understanding that not everyone has the same taste in books and would love the books I love, here are some of my all-time favorites in no particular order:

How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life

The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Anchor Library of Science)

 

the “greater depression”

1 Reply

This article from Project Syndicate is very pessimistic about prospects for the global economy. It focuses mostly on low inflation:

Draghi began by acknowledging that, in Europe, inflation has declined from around 2.5% in mid-2012 to 0.4% today. He then argued that we can no longer assume that the drivers of this trend – such as a drop in food and energy prices, high unemployment, and the crisis in Ukraine – are temporary in nature.

In fact, inflation has been declining for so long that it is now threatening price stability – and inflation expectations continue to fall. The five-year swap rate – an indicator of medium-term inflation expectations – has fallen by 15 basis points since mid-2012, to less than 2%. Moreover, as Draghi noted, real short- and medium-term rates have increased; long-term rates have not, owing to a decline in long-term nominal rates that extends far beyond the eurozone…

A year and a half ago, those who expected a return by 2017 to the path of potential output – whatever that would be – estimated that the Great Recession would ultimately cost the North Atlantic economy about 80% of one year’s GDP, or $13 trillion, in lost production. If such a five-year recovery began now – a highly optimistic scenario – it would mean losses of about $20 trillion. If, as seems more likely, the economy performs over the next five years as it has for the last two, then takes another five years to recover, a massive $35 trillion worth of wealth would be lost.

When do we admit that it is time to call what is happening by its true name?

This discussion doesn’t really get at potential root causes (a valid criticism of most economic and financial reporting, I think) – is it just a lack of confidence feeding on itself? Is it lack of innovation causing productivity to fall? Is it automation causing productivity to rise but lining too few pockets? Is it climate change or some other manifestation of environmental degradation?

The reference to falling food and energy prices wouldn’t seem to support that last hypothesis. But I don’t quite get it – Brent crude is at $102 a barrel compared to its historic inflation-adjusted level of $20-40 for most of the last century. Meat and grain prices in the U.S. are definitely up due to one of the worst droughts ever in some key farming states. And that’s the U.S., not the tropics where the bulk of humanity now lives and the bulk of food needs to be grown in the future. So if I am right and there are serious pressures on water, energy, and food, we better hope that we are innovating at the same time to do something about it.

more on drought in California

Leave a reply

From the BBC:

For many years rainfall, reservoirs and irrigation canals have allowed this sunny expanse in California to produce half of America’s fruit, nuts and vegetables.

But after three extremely dry years, the farmers are turning to groundwater to keep their crops and their precious trees alive.

There’s a water-rush as drilling companies are burrowing ever deeper – and there’s no restriction on how many wells can be sunk underground…

In some parts of the Central Valley, the water level has dropped more than 20m in less than a year…

This year, for the first time, farmers in many parts of the Central Valley have received no rainwater or runoff allocation for their crops from the water district…

“If this drought situation is the new normal we are going to have to completely re-think how much food we can grow – and a lot of people depend on California for growing food,” he said.

It can be hard to separate the long-term signal from the short-term noise, but still this seems like it may be climate change finally coming to bite us. That’s what happened in Australia and it took them a decade to accept their “new normal”.

Water, energy, and food supplies (and prices) all fluctuate constantly and affect one another. Here’s NPR talking about a few of these fluctuations but ultimately coming back to, yes, drought.

Across the country, the virus killed several million piglets, adding up to a lot fewer hogs at market. So tighter supply means Lewis gets paid more per pound, per hog.

“It’s been remarkable what the price has done,” says Lewis. “The last couple of years, hog farmers dug a real deep equity hole. And so it’s really nice to have that hole start to get filled up.”

He’s referring partly to the cost of feed — a major expense here on the farm. After record high corn prices in 2012, feed has now gotten cheaper, and Lewis can raise bigger hogs.

It’s a different story with cattle, which take much longer to bring to market. When feed prices skyrocketed two years ago, many ranchers sold off more cattle than they might have otherwise.

That extra beef is long gone, and ongoing drought in the Plains states means herds aren’t growing fast enough to meet demand.

The headline suggests that higher meat prices “aren’t scaring consumers”, but later they say that “Shoppers who can may spend more to eat the same amount of meat. Others will spend just the same, but get less.” That’s how it works in this economic system of ours – those who can pay more, do, and those who can’t, do without.

August 2014 in Review

Leave a reply

At the end of July, my Hope for the Future Index stood at -2. Let’s see if things got any better in August. As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-8):

  • The Ebola outbreak is very sad and scary. Some people are calling this a “dress rehearsal” for the “big one” that could actually threaten humanity more widely. (-1)
  • New research on patents suggests that they have mixed effects, at best, in spurring innovation – they are effective in some industries (like drugs, chemicals, mechanical technology) but actually an impediment to innovation in others (like computers, electronics, medical technology). The former are examples of technologies with very clear “recipes” which can easily be copied, it seems to me, while the latter are complex and knowing how others have made them doesn’t necessarily mean you can make them easily. Another hypothesis would be that the computer industry just moves a lot faster, so knowing how somebody made something yesterday doesn’t help you compete with them, because they have already moved on to the next thing today. But if that is the case, should we be trying to speed up the slow industries rather than giving some players protections that slow or deter their potential competitors? (-0)
  • The drought in the western United States is looking worse and worse. Is it the “new normal”, or is it just a really bad drought, as happens from time to time? Unfortunately we can only answer this question in retrospect, but it seems prudent to take action as though it were the new normal. Even if it turns out just to be a bad drought, it is clear that snow packs we used to rely on are melting and that we have mined groundwater unsustainably in many places. These are things that urgently need new management strategies – lack of rain is just adding insult to injury. On a slightly positive note, agricultural has adapted to change in the past and may be able to adapt again. (-1)
  • In 1986 Ronald Reagan laid out a bold vision for complete elimination of nuclear weapons…which was interpreted by everyone else as a sign of him losing his mind. (-3)
  • A few people are questioning the gospel of shareholder value as the only thing a company, its management and employees have any business caring about. Milton Friedman, if not exactly spinning in his grave, might have rolled over just an inch or two. But most people and companies still take it as…well…gospel. Noam Chomsky can explain pretty well why this is likely to lead our civilization to ruin – because the long-term “externalities” not being considered, which are costs to everyone for the next several generations, are much larger than the short-term financial profits being made by a few shareholders today. (-2)
  • Cars – the more I think about it, the more I am coming to believe they are the root of all evil in our society, and they have to go. But a positive way of saying that is that we could really solve an enormous number of thorny, intertwined problems if we come up with better, cleaner, faster, cheaper, safer ways to get around, which really shouldn’t be hard! (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+11):

  • I discovered NetLogo, which is a programming language supposedly even children can learn and use to do dynamic simulations. Educational tools like this are critical if we want to build a new generation of system thinkers with any chance to solve our problems. (+3)
  • There is new research on corridors and connectivity for wildlife habitat. This is important because we are not going to have many huge, interrupted reserves in the future and we need the connected patches and smaller reserves that remain, interspersed with the human-dominated landscape, to be as ecologically functional as possible. And it turns out that the human-dominated landscape itself does not have to be an ecological dead zone, but can actually be preferred by some wildlife such as some kinds of birds and bees (+1)
  • David Cameron has announced a bold plan to make chemotherapy “a thing of the past” through accelerated genetic research. (+1)
  • Elon Musk is trying to put sustainable colonies on Mars longer term as a hedge against human extinction, build cheap batteries for cheap electric cars and houses, build cheap solar panels to charge the batteries, and protect us against killer artificial intelligence. (+1)
  • Vermont is adopting the Genuine Progress Indicator, a GDP alternative that adjusts for natural capital depletion. The World Economic Forum also has a nifty GDP alternative index. (+1)
  • Grid parity for solar energy appears to be here, seriously for real this time. Economic mayhem for the business-as-usual fossil fueled utilities is likely to follow. (+3)
  • Speaking of economic mayhem, cap and trade is going on in California! And looks like it is going to add to the cost of gas…ten cents or so. Just a reminder that consumers can either pay that, or choose to adjust their lifestyle ever so slightly to include ten cents less driving. (+1)
  • A couple more fabulous science fiction technologies, which can be used for good or evil or none of the above, are here: virtual reality and remote control moths. (+0)

Hope for the Future Index (July 2014): -2

August 2014 change: -8 + 11 = +3

Hope for the Future Index (August 2014): +1

Wow, we’re in positive territory people!

cap and trade

Leave a reply

This Greentech article has a long analysis of how cap-and-trade is likely to affect gas prices in California. The author comes up with ten cents a gallon, then explains why he thinks the higher estimates offered by the oil industry are just scare tactics. To put the ten cents in perspective, he offers the following options to offset the cost:

This is all good, common sense advice. But I would offer one more: live where you can (safely) walk or bicycle to work, shopping, recreation, and medical care. But, you say, I don’t live in a place like that. Well, you control where you live. Decide that in 5 years you want to live in a place like that, then make it happen. If enough people do that, there will be more places like that. Or if you are a truly tough-minded person, decide that in 10 or 20 years you want the place you live now to be like that, find other people who agree with you, and get out there and make it happen. You will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put money back in your pocket. You and your loved ones will be at much less risk of serious injury caused by a car. You won’t drive drunk, or get run over by someone else driving drunk. Increased physical activity and decreased air pollution will add years to your life. And most important, at least to me, commuting will no longer be an enormous waste of so many precious hours of your life, but quite possibly the best part of your day.