A Little Book About Climate Change by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

What Mitigation Means

There are a lot of books that explore the various means of mitigating climate change. I am giving just a brief summary here, and also focusing on a few things that get less of a mention but which impact very much on the above conclusion — that it is our own individual change that will drive the wider change in society. I group the mitigation measures under energy, buildings, transport, agriculture, forests, oceans and infrastructure and deal with each one of these below.

19

A Little Book about Climate Change Energy

Energy is often the topic most familiar to us in any discussion on climate change. A lot of our energy still comes from fossil fuels. Burning these produces Carbon Dioxide and this builds up in the atmosphere and causes global warming. What’s more, fossil fuels are running out, so even without the problems of climate change, we still need to be looking at alternatives over the long-term. The good news here is that the development of renewable energy is well under way and it is mostly cheaper than fossil fuels. So the change has gathered its own momentum and the days are numbered for the older power-generation industries.

Let’s

touch

a

little

on

the

individual’s

involvement in all this, since that is the theme I’m seeking to emphasise throughout this book.

The first thing to say, when we are looking at providing heating, hot water and power to our homes, is that electricity is always going to be the better option, so far as the planet is concerned. Even if the reader is living in a country where, for the moment, most energy is produced via the burning of fossil fuels, that is likely to change in the near future. Electricity will become increasingly based on renewable sources — increasingly green.

The other thing to consider is whether the household is getting its electricity from the nation’s power grid, or if some or all of the energy is provided by the use of ‘micro-renewables’, such as solar panels, a small wind turbine or a micro-hydro scheme. If a household 20

A Little Book about Climate Change provides all of its own energy this is often referred to as being ‘off-grid’. So we could ask here, is being off-grid worth it? Is it cheaper and is it better for the planet? We’ll return to these questions below.

One thing to note is that if the home is relying solely on grid electricity for all its energy needs then it has a problem if there is a power cut.

(Many gas-and oil-fired boilers also still need an electricity supply to function.) So it is a good idea to have some back up, at least for heating, and especially in a cold climate. A wood-burning stove is a good option here. (The jury is out on whether burning wood is a positive or a negative for the planet. For the UK at least, our land area to population size would only allow about a tenth of households to burn wood before we’d need to start importing and then this option tips towards a negative impact on climate over all.)

The next point is that, yes, solar power and such things as ground-and air-source heat pumps (which deliver more heat for a given amount of energy input) will eventually pay for themselves and energy bills will be cheaper. The caveat here is how long will these products last? And the further caveat is to ask: Is it more difficult and expensive over all to have every household fitted with such devices, or would it be better to put all our efforts into a more environmentally-friendly grid system?

Along with that, there may be opportunities for district energy and heating schemes that work out cheaper and more efficient than fitting out individual houses. There could, for instance, be 21

A Little Book about Climate Change a large wind turbine that provides electricity to a village. Or there may be a large heat pump that takes energy from something like a lake or an underground aquifer and delivers the heat to homes at a lower cost than if each home had an individual pump.

Of course, for most of us, our choices are limited, so switching to having a home which is all-electric is probably the most significant thing we could do. There is nevertheless the lure of independence from the big energy providers that micro-renewables can offer us. We asked earlier if going off-grid is worthwhile financially and for the planet. We can say that, for one thing, it is a lifestyle decision that moves people towards self-reliance. That appeals to a lot of people. It is not necessarily a simpler lifestyle. The kit might be quite complex. Even if the choice were to keep things as simple as possible, with just a stove for heating and cooking, candles for lighting and batteries for a few household gadgets, the householder still needs to think about keeping a supply of all their energy and lighting sources, for all weathers, etc. So if we are really serious about off-grid, then we need to set aside a lot of time to collect wood, light the stove, heat water and cook meals and maintain a supply of candles and batteries.

Could we all live off-grid? For the UK, as we saw above, there is not enough local timber to allow wood to be part of an off-grid solution for more than about a tenth of households. If we were not to use so much timber, then being off-grid would mean relying on more technical solutions such as solar panels. (No doubt what I’ve said above about a stove, candles and batteries will sound horrific to a lot of readers, 22

A Little Book about Climate Change so this is probably the more favoured version of off-grid!) All that would really achieve would be to move the complexities of energy supply, demand, and necessary infrastructure around quite drastically, but probably not making us more sustainable over all.

Short of going off-grid, I think it’s best to go for a ‘normal’ house, but with as much insulation and draft-proofing as we can pack in. Put shutters on the windows and heavy curtains to reach the floor. Have carpets rather than bare floorboards. I posed the question above of whether the more technical micro-renewable installations are really worthwhile over all, compared to say, a better national electric grid.

In balance, I worry about how effective micro-renewables such as heat pumps and solar panels will be long-term for an individual house. So I suggest don’t bother with hi-tech ‘renewable’

gizmos. Use stand-alone electric heaters and a power shower. If the household is willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience, just boil a kettle to get hot water for washing dishes etc.

Otherwise, have a small instant electric water heater, easily accessible, on each hot water tap.

Install a wood-burning stove with a hot plate, to allow one room to be heated and water to be boiled (and a simple meal to be prepared) in the event of a power cut.

Buildings

When we turn to buildings themselves, there are a few general questions we can ask and then again we can focus in on the small-scale individual householder.

23

A Little Book about Climate Change The first thing to look at is cities. More than 50% of humans live in cities and the proportion is rising. Is this a good idea, from the planet’s point of view? In favour of cities, they leave more space elsewhere for nature to thrive. They make transport and infrastructure easier to provide (as long as people generally stay in their own city and are not continually travelling across the globe). Cities tend to promote innovation amongst people for technology and the arts. They allow specialist businesses to thrive because there is a sufficient base of local population to provide them with adequate revenue. On the negative side of cities: storm events and heat waves hitting cities cause intensified devastation. There is a disconnect from nature. There may be problems supplying the food, water and energy requirements to people when we are clustered in high densities.

There is an atomising and alienating effect from cities and it can be difficult to achieve good neighbourhoods and communities when people do not feel any kind of cultural or social connection with where they live.

So do cities come out better or worse for the planet? It is a personal view, and not backed up by any research, but I think there is a threshold beyond which the problems of alienation mentioned above outweigh the advantages of cities. Somehow we seem to want some kind of local connection, but once cities get beyond a few million in population this seems to be difficult to achieve. Bureaucracy cannot cope with the mega-city.

Next we can ask about the scale of buildings within our towns and cities. Here again there is 24

A Little Book about Climate Change a balance to be struck. The taller the building the more likely it is that it will rely on technology to be built and to function. A tall building mostly needs to be of steel (although there are some timber skyscrapers) and it will need a lot more in the way of infrastructure for lifts, fire protection, water supply, and so on.

The plus side of tall buildings however is that more funds can be raised from the sale or rent of a property which is a high-rise building than a building of lower height. Indeed, there are places

where

low-rise

buildings

may

be

unviable, from a financial point of view. So, is there a cut-off point? Probably yes, around eight storeys as a maximum. The financial issues raised above are certainly pertinent though. I think the wider question of the way we treat land is the issue here. The tall height of buildings is a symptom of things being wrong in the economics around land use. So to get to smaller and more compact cities we would have to address the politics around owning, buying and selling land, as a first step. This, of course, is outwith the scope of the consumer, so I leave the question aside.

We have touched on building materials above and we can go on to ask about materials more generally and to focus in on matters that effect the individual householder.

We could generalise here by saying that the more natural the materials, the better. But this comes with a few caveats. Natural materials may be scarce and expensive in a particular location and the householder may struggle to afford them. Also, natural materials may require greater skill, time and expense in terms 25

A Little Book about Climate Change of construction and future maintenance. So once again there is a balance to be struck.

Smaller buildings are obviously cheaper all round and buildings closer to cubes are more energy-efficient than sprawling buildings that have a high surface area compared to their volume. A flat or a terraced house — all things being equal — is going to be more energy-efficient than a detached building of the same volume.

Large areas of glazing and external doors are especially wasteful of energy in colder climates (although south-facing windows can provide some heat from solar gain). Even the best triple glazing is only about one tenth as good as the equivalent area of well-insulated wall.

It always pays to insulate! Provided the insulation is well fitted and there is adequate ventilation to each construction element, then insulation is always a worthwhile investment.

There are some oddities that come up when we think about the costs of buildings and their materials and fittings. Take, for instance, the fitted hob and fitted oven — now more or less standard features of a kitchen in the Western world. Look at the prices of these and compare them with stand-alone hobs and ovens. Perhaps they are around ten times the cost. And how about comparing an oil-filled radiator fitted to a wall with one that is just stand-alone and plugged into a wall socket? Again, several times the price for what is essentially the same thing.

Returning to windows, look at the cost of a sheet of glass (or even the cost of a double-26

A Little Book about Climate Change glazed unit bought separately from a window) and then the cost of a complete window with the same area of glass. Almost certainly a huge difference in price and yet the window frames are

usually

made

from

relatively

cheap

materials. The DIY enthusiast could probably put together some simple window frames with shutters and draught excluders, with the glass bought separately and have something nearly as energy-efficient as a manufactured window, but at a fraction of the cost.

The bizarre point is that business (and often governments as well) don’t like us getting involved in DIY of any kind! Everything is sealed up, packaged and made difficult and costly to repair. Or it is made to seem more complex than it really is, just so that we can be dumbed down as consumers. Then we will just buy what is offered to us and throw things away when they break. Instead we could be making, inventing, re-using, and repairing for ourselves and for our neighbours.

Transport

Thus far, there is something of a pattern that can be identified in the various alternatives that might help us in our efforts to mitigate climate change. The pattern is this. If we can replace something that is causing a problem for the climate with something equally good that does not cause a problem, then this is likely to be the kind of solution that people will accept. For instance, as long as the house is warm, the lights stay on and there is adequate hot water, we may not be too concerned with whether the energy for all this comes from fossil fuels or 27

A Little Book about Climate Change from renewables. The transition does not involve any sacrifice. Indeed, the transition may even save us money.

When it comes to transport however, we are on the edge of a bigger problem. From the above, we might take that same discussion about replacing something with ‘equal and as good’

but more environmentally-friendly and apply it to cars and other means of transport. So we could say, if an electric car gives the same level of comfort and convenience as the petrol car, then there is no sacrifice to be made — we have achieved that ‘equal and as good’ criterion and the planet has been helped into the bargain.

Also, transport takes us to the edge of those other challenges we met in the Introduction.

Whilst we can have unlimited energy from nature and could build our homes entirely from natural products, if we chose, we cannot create a transport network without impacting on non-renewable resources and also impacting heavily on natural habitats.

As I write this in 2021, the UK, along with many Western nations, is already well under way towards the change to electric vehicles. As we’ve

said

above,

this

change,

whilst

substantial, is not one that is going to cause massive disruption to society. People’s lifestyles are unaffected, just as a change to electric heating means little to folk as long as their house is warm. At face value, electric transport will be a huge step forwards in the effort to mitigate climate change, as the reliance on fossil fuels will be broken. But looked at in a broader context, is it all good?

28

A Little Book about Climate Change For one thing, the massive infrastructure of roads, service stations and all the other ancillary industries related to transport will more or less remain intact. Apart from still having to build and maintain the road network, a huge growth industry for electric batteries has to be created to sustain electric vehicles. These currently rely on fairly scarce resources for their manufacture.

Then there are all the materials for the cars themselves, which will remain little changed when moving from petrol to electric. A lot of the air pollution caused by vehicles is from the wear on tyres and brakes, so this also remains a problem. Accidents and the disruption caused by roadworks and traffic jams remain. We’ll be looking at infrastructure in more detail below, but for now it is worth bearing in mind that electric vehicles still remain problematic.

When we consider air travel this is when the impact on lifestyle really starts to hit home.

Suggesting that we should give up or severely limit flying is where a lot of people start to switch off. The holiday is built into the Western lifestyle and many people take great pride in telling others about all of the trips they have made over their lifetime. The more exotic and remote their destinations, the better. These are collected like badges of honour.

If we try to encourage people to switch to public transport instead of using their private cars then we face similar difficulties. The autonomy and convenience of the car is just too much to give up, despite all the issues that will remain with us even after the change to electric vehicles.

29

A Little Book about Climate Change What then can be done? One possible solution goes back to our earlier discussions on cities.

This

is

where

‘walkable’

towns

and

neighbourhoods — such that all or most of the facilities we need in our day-to-day lives are available close to hand — come into their own.

Another, and related, solution is to do a lot more to

encourage

community.

 

With

strong

community, people will want to remain at home or close by, in case they should miss out on all the

excitement

happening

on

their

own

doorsteps! When the UK and many other nations locked down in the spring of 2020, because of the Covid 19 pandemic, we had a glimpse of what things could be like. Wildlife seemed to flourish and people went out walking, visiting their local parks and beauty spots and their local shops. Was that really such a bad life? Remember too that a similar move in response to climate change would not stop us from seeing friends and family — which of course was something we had to miss out on during the pandemic. We could do something similar to that Covid lockdown in response to climate change and reap the benefits of this as a permanent solution.

Agriculture

Agriculture is another area where there is potentially a big impact on the lives of individuals. For much of the thirty or forty years when the dangers of climate change have been understood, agriculture has been something of the forgotten element in comparison to our use of fossil fuels. But now it is widely recognised that a great deal of our agricultural land is given over to raising cattle and that this choice leads 30

A Little Book about Climate Change to problems. We could feed a lot more people with a lot less land if everyone were to adopt a largely vegetarian diet. On the other hand, a diet with a high meat content means a lot more wild nature destroyed to make way for cattle farming. This causes a huge strain on water resources and some very serious social justice issues as poorer nations struggle to feed their own populations whilst catering for the wealthier nations’ obsession with beef and salmon.

These are complex issues, of course, and there are many instances of small-scale organic farms where animals and fish form important elements in very rich, balanced and sustainable methods of food production. Farming communities throughout the world will often see the concern for nature and calls for ‘re-wilding’ as somewhat sentimental and very often promoted by urban middle-class folk with little knowledge of what rural living and food production really involve. I have some sympathy with this view, but nonetheless, without a viable natural world there would be no human world. In the 1960’s, two thirds of the land area of the planet could be described as wild nature. Now, in the 2020’s, it’s down to less than one third. As we will see in the next sections, this is not a situation that can continue for much longer. In the meantime, agricultural practices such as permaculture (including

ocean

permaculture)

and

‘regenerative’ farming successfully mix animal husbandry, care for wild nature and food growing without the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. And they still turn a profit! So, whilst every country and climate has its own unique circumstances, it seems there is great scope for agriculture everywhere to change for 31

A Little Book about Climate Change the better, giving us healthier diets and more space for nature.

But again, what about the consumer — what can we do? Western nations are obsessed with food, and suggesting to people that they should change their diets is therefore fraught with difficulties. It’s fairly easy to say, don’t fly, don’t drive, as these are simple messages, albeit often unwelcome ones. But, just to say, ‘don’t eat meat’ is not nearly as simple. Many food crops involve the destruction of wildlife habitats and pollution from pesticides and from the over-use of fertiliser. So we may save some animals but at the same time inadvertently kill a huge number more as a result. Also, many foods sold in the UK and other Western nations undergo a great deal of processing and packaging, which greatly adds to their impact on the environment, even when the food in question is vegetarian or vegan.

I can only offer two simple messages here. Go with what can be obtained locally, preferably from an organic farmer, even if that involves some meat, poultry or fish. And, cook from scratch, if possible. Similar to the household appliances we discussed above, it’s amazing how much price gets added to food just from it being packaged and sold to us as a ‘ready meal’.

Forests and Oceans

Like agriculture, forests and oceans have been something of the poor cousins when it came to looking at the concerns of climate change in the past. For one thing, living systems were often left out of early climate models. Forests and 32

A Little Book about Climate Change oceans affect the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

 

Water

vapour

is

itself

a

greenhouse gas, and it is also difficult to include in climate models, so also often gets left out.

But now the importance of forests and oceans is much more clearly understood, both for our climate and for those other challenges we have in mind — the loss of natural resources and the decline in bio-diversity. Also — and something we do not hear discussed very much — the forests and oceans provide us with most of the Oxygen in our atmosphere. Without forests and marine organisms, the amount of Oxygen would decline. So a dead ocean or a flattened forest is not just a tragedy because, in balance, the forests and oceans absorb Carbon Dioxide and help mitigate climate change. Or even for the loss of wildlife such destruction represents. It is also a serious risk to the viability of all Oxygen –

breathing creatures on the planet.

So, the protection of forests and oceans is not just about having these wild places around for us to enjoy, even although that is important.

Nor is it just about all the resources that the forests and oceans provide us with, although clearly that is important too. It is a matter of life and death. Without viable living oceans and substantial forests there would be very little life able to survive on the planet. So, whilst there is a link between forests, oceans and climate change, they are also a major concern in their own right. Even if there were no climate change, the loss of forest and living oceans could more or less wipe us out.

I recognise that for many of us the preservation of forests and the health of the oceans are 33

A Little Book about Climate Change distant goals and ones that we probably feel powerless to affect. But there are some modest things we can do on our own doorstep that will support these efforts, at least in spirit. I am thinking of the preservation of local parks, trees, rivers, ponds and lakes close by to where we live. If we are fortunate enough to have a garden, hopefully it can be kept at least as lawn and flower beds and not covered over with tarmac or paving. Or why not grow some food?

I know these are small matters compared to the plight of the Amazon rainforest or the Great Barrier Reef, but in the spirit of this book, every individual decision matters.

Re-wilding, coupled with better agricultural practices, could make an enormous difference to the UK and to most countries across the world.

It would take a lot of discussion and a lot of skilful negotiations, but could be a win for everyone if we were really serious about it.

And, in terms of the planet, we still potentially have just enough time to make a very substantial

contribution

towards

mitigating

climate change, just through working in harmony with nature for the forests, the oceans and for food growing.

Infrastructure

‘Economies of scale’ is a term long since presented

as

a

means

by

which

large

populations can benefit from goods and services that might otherwise be difficult and expensive to provide at a local level. Capitalism has embraced the term, and more or less taken it to be a given that manufacturing on a large scale and then distributing the products is always 34

A Little Book about Climate Change going to be more cost-affective. It means more profit for the manufacturer and cheaper goods and more choice for the consumer. Is this true?

Well, from the manufacturer’s (or service-provider’s) point of view, usually, yes. And the reason it is true is mainly because of the infrastructures that are in place to allow for the economy of scale to happen. The infrastructure includes the electricity grid, water supply and drainage,

gas

supply,

roads,

railways,

telephone, internet, wi-fi and airlines. Whilst, like all of us, businesses will be paying a contribution towards these things, they will by no means be paying the true cost. That money usually comes via the government, and

therefore from taxation. Thus, ultimately, it is us consumers who are subsidising the costs. So it is not surprising that economies of scale seem to work so well. Most of the costs are hidden from us, and most of the costs are borne unwittingly by us, the customers. If we were to do the sums differently and tried to see the costs in terms of their impact on the climate, on resources and on nature, then a very different picture emerges. Now the scenario of centralised manufacturing and services with complex distribution systems appears as a very expensive and wasteful system. And that element that might seem the most benign, the wi-fi

connectivity

for

all

manner

of

communication and information exchange, is actually amongst the most harmful and wasteful of all.

Infrastructure then is one of the most hidden, least obvious issues that we face when tackling climate change. Much of the world has gone down this route of building up its infrastructure 35

A Little Book about Climate Change because it has genuinely appeared to be the right thing to do. So we have a very difficult task if we were to try to convince people that actually it makes life more expensive rather than cheaper and causes great harm to the planet into the bargain. We don’t see this argument presented to us very often as a means of mitigating climate change — and that’s not surprising, it seems counter-intuitive.

With so much investment in infrastructure, we might at least expect that things would be improving in terms of supply of goods and services. And that therefore it may be worth it, even if it is really us consumers who bear the brunt of the costs. But even this hope is increasingly precarious. The reliance on wi-fi and the internet is of particular concern. If there were a power cut at a local corner shop, they might not even be able to sell a loaf of bread, because their till is electronic and wi-fi connected. Our bank accounts are increasingly vulnerable to hackers and fraud and if the bank’s computers go down then it means significant

disruption

for

businesses

and

individuals.

Governments, meanwhile, seem intent on pushing for improvements to wi-fi, with the aim of

keeping

industries

‘competitive’.

 

An

increasing proportion of defence budgets go towards cyber-security. The government (in the UK at least) does not generally encourage backup plans, for when there are power cuts or wi-fi shut downs, or when there is a break in the supply chain for food and other essentials. (If backup plans were put in place then arguably this would be real defence and real security.) 36

A Little Book about Climate Change And businesses, even although they would be wise to put in place their own contingencies, either cannot afford to do so, or they just take the risk that they can sit out any problems that might come along.

All of this may seem a long way from our discussions about climate change, resources and bio-diversity. But as I’ve said above, with cyberspace in particular, we are talking about huge impacts. It may seem that the mobile phone and the laptop use tiny amounts of power, and this is true. They therefore seem rather innocent compared to trucks, aircraft and container ships. But we tend to forget — or, are just unaware of — the massive infrastructure behind our phones and computers and the enormous amounts of natural resource that go into manufacturing our high-tech gadgets.

Generally speaking, the more complex the technology, the greater the infrastructure needed to support it (and often the more hidden and remote this is from us consumers). And let’s face it, the world seems to have a voracious appetite for more technology — what it calls

‘progress’.

Following the pattern I’ve established in the previous sections, we can ask, what can the individual do? And here, I have to say, I am a bit stumped for suggestions, as even the most dedicated off-gridder must rely, to some extent, on many of the infrastructures I have listed above. Short of becoming a hunter-gatherer, we are all forced into participating, unless society were to decide wholesale to abandon its commitment to distribution and instead promote local self-sufficiency and resilience. Such local 37

A Little Book about Climate Change autonomy is indeed promoted by such groups as the Transition Town movement, as a step towards being prepared for more extreme climate change and scarcity of resources. But I have to say that for now it is a tough choice.

I notice though that even those who have perhaps little knowledge of these matters seem nonetheless to have some kind of instinctive appreciation of them. Hence, the climate activist using a laptop or a mobile phone is seen as something of a contradiction.

You may have arguments to counter this (such that — and probably correctly — there’s not really any escape from wi-fi). Or you may argue that, in balance, the greater connectivity afforded by these devices is worth it for the sake of trying to save the planet. But I think it’s worth noting people’s responses. Could the activist go without a mobile or a laptop?

Even for renewable energy solutions — we have to look at the materials used, the supply chain and the various infrastructures needed to support them. And even with all that — if there is something that is found to be genuinely saving energy — then there’s a further sting in the tail — Jevon’s Paradox.

Make a car more fuel-efficient and people will drive more – in fact, people will drive more than even the extra amount that is allowed by the improved fuel-efficiency. This strange fact of human nature is repeated in numerous other examples. Staying with cars, for instance, if the price of fuel is reduced then again mileage goes up, beyond the amount that compensates for 38

A Little Book about Climate Change the price saved in fuel. Across the board, wherever there is an energy ‘saving’, we humans will end up using and spending more on whatever form that energy or saving happens to take. This is Jevon’s Paradox. The only way around it is for people to really want to save energy — and generally live different lives —

rather than just want to save money. This challenge will be taken up again in a later chapter.

In the meantime, I leave these thoughts with you and turn now to the second method of addressing climate change — adaptation.

39

A Little Book about Climate Change 40

A Little Book about Climate Change Adaptation

The world may be very close to the point where mitigation measures are not enough to stop climate change. We noted earlier that as the temperature rises natural feedback loops come into play, causing more heat, even if we humans were to cut our emissions to zero. There may not be a stable climate at two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Two degrees of warming may force the temperature to go to three or four degrees before the planet settles into a new stable state.

In the previous chapter we looked at the familiar mitigation measures of cutting our use of fossil fuels and making changes in order to save energy. We also looked at less familiar measures, such as changes to agriculture, the preservation of our forests and oceans and re-considering our infrastructure. If we did all of these things, on a huge scale, and within a few years, then there is still a chance that we will avoid the runaway warming that I have described above. Even if we were successful, it would be many decades before there were signs of the planet beginning to cool. We would need to maintain our efforts for centuries in order to keep things in balance and return to something 41

A Little Book about Climate Change like the climate and natural environments we enjoyed as recently as the 1960’s!

There are other options out there however, and I want to discuss these briefly before moving on to the more conventional adaptation measures that are the main subject of this chapter. In fact, the options discussed here might be considered as sitting somewhere between mitigation and adaptation. They can be grouped under the collective term, ‘geo-engineering’.

Geo-engineering

I am just listing the various options here, without going into too much detail on each individual proposal. Here are the alternatives: 1. Stratospheric Sulphates. We currently try to reduce sulphates in the atmosphere, as they fall to Earth as acid rain. Sulphates that are higher up in the stratosphere would take longer to fall back to Earth and would reflect back sunlight so would cool the temperature within a short while.

Tiny droplets of sulphuric acid have been proposed. One argument against this form of cooling is that — borrowing a phrase from economics — it is a moral hazard. The comparison is made with bailing out an organisation that has got itself into trouble because of risky business deals. To rescue such an organisation is seen as unhelpful in the long term as it sends a signal to others that similar risky dealings are okay because they can also be assured of a bail-out. So the comparison being made — the ‘moral hazard’ with regard to climate change — is that, effectively, we run the risk that people will take the cooling of the 42

A Little Book about Climate Change atmosphere to mean we can continue burning fossil fuels with impunity. However, if the production of sulphates were ever stopped, then within a short time the temperature would revert to the ‘real’ temperature for however much Carbon Dioxide is in the atmosphere at that time — potentially with catastrophic consequences. Increased Carbon Dioxide also causes acidification of the oceans, risking even further harm to our already threatened marine habitats. Stratospheric sulphates do not solve this problem.

2. Ocean spray used to create increased cloud cover. The type of cloud produced is called Stratocumulus and already occurs naturally —

mostly near the equator. Again, the intention is to reflect more sunlight back into space and thereby keep the temperature lower. (This still does not resolve increased Carbon Dioxide causing acidification of the oceans. And once again, if the process stopped for some reason, then temperatures would quickly escalate to their ‘real’ levels.)

3. Mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The mirrors would be at the LaGrange point, where the Earth and the Sun’s gravitational pull cancel each other out. (Also does not resolve increased CO2 causing acidification of the oceans.) 4. ‘Biochar’. Essentially charcoal buried as organic fertiliser, locking in large amounts of Carbon Dioxide. (This, and all subsequent measures, involve locking up Carbon Dioxide and therefore resolve the ocean acidification issue.)

5. Direct sequestration of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and storage (possibly in the form of Magnesium Carbonate).

43

A Little Book about Climate Change 6. Increasing the iron content of marine plankton so that they fix more Carbon Dioxide in the oceans.

7. Genetically engineering microbes that can absorb large quantities of Carbon Dioxide.

8. BECCS (Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage). CCS technology is mostly envisaged for removing Carbon Dioxide from conventional fossil fuel plants. Combined with biomass however, it would effectively be a carbon neutral industry. But the amount of land needed to supply the biomass would be colossal and would remove land from food growing.

9. Just plant trees! The problem is it would take around seven million square kilometres of new forest to sequester the extra Carbon Dioxide we currently add to the atmosphere.

Nature’s sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in other areas, such as the oceans, may slow as a result. One report suggests the net effect of the extra forest cover might be a 40ppm (parts per million) reduction in Carbon Dioxide. We touched on forests in the last chapter. We should distinguish between mass tree-planting and the preservation and protection of natural, especially

old-growth,

forests.

 

A

‘geo-engineering’ approach to forestry would mean just trying to get the maximum carbon sequestered — maybe combined with industrial-style forest management. Alternatively (and perhaps more welcome) would be re-wilding of the landscape to heal and restore ecosystems.

The latter might not produce such fast and profitable resources, but would be better in the longer-term. Recently it’s been suggested that the total effect of a healthy ecosystem has very much more capacity for absorbing CO2 and regulating climate than might previously been 44

A Little Book about Climate Change appreciated. This, I think, is one of our greatest hopes for the future.

What

can

we

say

about

these

various

alternatives? For one thing, they mostly rely on a good deal of co-operation between nations.

One nation could not easily go it alone with most of these proposals. A few countries, such as Russia, Canada and Greenland, will probably have a net benefit from at least a modest rise in global temperatures. So agreement may be difficult. One country could however do some direct Carbon capture, or introduce ‘biochar’ into their agricultural systems, but unless it is a very large and wealthy nation, this is not going to make a lot of difference.

The second thing to say about the geo-engineering solutions is that, for the most part, they are massive technological projects, and therefore very expensive. The exception here is again biochar and also the first solution on the list, seeding the atmosphere with sulphates.

(Possibly the cloud-seeding and the microbes are also cheap, but this is a bit uncertain for now.) The third comment to make is that all of the geo-engineering solutions are relatively quick fixes. If deployed at scale, they would bring global temperatures back down to pre-industrial levels within a matter of a few years, at most. If one or more of the solutions were ramped up to scale right now then the impact would coincide with the really dangerous time frame of around 2030, when it looks like we might be otherwise too late to avert very serious climate change impacts. We need, however, to introduce a few caveats here. For one thing, some of the proposed solutions, as indicated in 45

A Little Book about Climate Change the descriptions, do not actually remove Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, they only dampen the temperature. So Carbon Dioxide levels may go on rising in the background and this still causes problems, such as the acidification of the oceans — which could impact severely on marine ecosystems. Also, it means that whatever geo-engineering solution is put in place, it would have to continue into the indefinite future, unless of course we were to continue our more standard mitigation efforts, in which case we could gradually wean ourselves off the geo-engineering quick fix. This way, geo-engineering could be regarded as a way of buying time, but it should not be regarded as a permanent solution. (This would be the ‘moral hazard’ mentioned in point one of the list.

Would we actually use the geo-engineering solutions just to buy time, or would we come to rely on them for the long-term?) Also, we can note that any significant sea-level rise would not immediately disappear as a result of a geo-engineering intervention! It would take quite a significant time for new ice to form at the poles and elsewhere, and thus allow sea levels to go back to their ‘normal’ levels.

Finally — and perhaps the reason why we should treat geo-engineering solutions with a great deal of scepticism — the results are highly unpredictable. Conducting such large-scale experiments on the entire planet is an incredibly risky business, even if we tried smaller-scale experiments first. The exceptions again are biochar, direct Carbon capture and planting trees, all of which can be deployed in a piecemeal manner, and as I’ve discussed above, 46

A Little Book about Climate Change have the advantage of removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere.

The world may one day be at a point where things

are

so

bad

that

large-scale

implementation of geo-engineering is the only option left to avoid total catastrophe. A small group of nations may then go it alone and roll out a quick fix, in a desperate attempt to bring temperatures down. In the meantime, out of all the solutions I’ve grouped together as geo-engineering, only direct Carbon capture, biochar and forestry come through as safe and relatively benign options. My concern though with Carbon capture is its reliance on technology. On a small-scale it works, but makes only a minor contribution at a significant cost. To deploy it at anything like the scale necessary to make an impact on global temperatures would involve so much industrial production it is doubtful whether the world economy could ever afford it. Of course that may change, but meanwhile it looks like biochar and forestry are the only real winners. These can be deployed as part of our efforts to improve agricultural practices, along with re-wilding as a way to help restore natural habitats. All of this can be tailored to different climates and different types of farming. It is relatively cheap and it seems not to have any undesirable side-effects.

We turn now to measures that can truly be described as adaptation and the first of these is to adapt to rising sea levels.

Sea-Level Rise

As I’ve said above, even if we manage to make 47

A Little Book about Climate Change drastic reductions in our Carbon emissions over the next few years, there will still be some further warming over the coming decades (short of deploying a geo-engineering quick fix) and hence some requirement for adaptation. And if we don’t make radical change in the next few years then our adaptation measures will need to be very significant. There is general agreement that to mitigate would be very much cheaper than to adapt. But as these crucial years tick by it is looking increasingly likely that we will run out of time for mitigation and will be forced into more and more complex adaptation measures.

Some governments have at least some plans in place. But for the most part, as with mitigation, it is too little, too late. Of course, governments are in the unenviable position of having to weigh up the odds of global mitigation measures being a success or a failure. If mitigation were globally successful, then much of the adaptation plans would be abortive. We can at least be sure that in many nations, insurance companies will in part shape what government fails to do.

And that brings us to our most pressing adaptation requirement — coping with sea-level rise.

As global temperatures increase then some sea-level rise occurs just because of the expansion of water. A little more is added by the melting of sea-ice, although not a great deal, as much of this is already more or less fully submerged.

The vast majority of sea-level rise occurs because of the melting of ice that is on land —

mainly the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

If all of the Greenland ice sheet were to melt this would raise global se-levels by several 48

A Little Book about Climate Change metres. If all the ice in the world were to melt then the rise would be about 70 metres.

So what kind of rise might be expected in the near future? Current estimates suggest a little over half a metre by 2100. However, with each year that passes, the predictions seem to increase. It used to be thought that it would take hundreds of years for Greenland or Antarctica’s ice to fully melt, but as studies of ice have advanced, the possibilities of rapidly increased melting seem more likely. As a consequence, predictions for sea-level rise go up as well. What sort of temperatures would we need to reach before there is a possibility of all the ice melting? The Arctic, as a region, is heating up a lot faster than the rest of the planet, so Greenland’s ice sheet is currently the main concern. But ice is melting at an increasing rate everywhere already, with our global average rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius. So, even if we only warmed to an average of two degrees, this would probably be enough to melt all the ice eventually. As I’ve said above, a two degree rise is not thought to produce a stable climatic state for the Earth, so if we reach two degrees we may well reach three or four. The melt and sea-level rise would be much, much faster.

Realistically then, preparing coastal towns and cities for half a metre or even a metre of sea-level rise is just putting off the inevitable and it is doubtful if any city could justify the flood defences for anything much more than this.

There is only one choice and that is higher ground.

49

A Little Book about Climate Change The reader, I am sure, will appreciate the dilemma for government. To move a large part (in some cases, all) of their population is a massive undertaking, and would take years to accomplish. Meanwhile, climate change may be stopped, and even reversed, so then a government’s efforts to build on higher ground would be in vain. It is understandable therefore that the emphasis tends to be on flood defence.

And of course, it is doubtful if any government could afford to save every town and village that lies on its coastline. The cities will be protected, but some places will be left to the waves (and hence the involvement of the insurance companies in the decisions around who will be helped and who will be abandoned). Those places abandoned can only hope for some compensation,

to

help

householders

and

businesses to move by their own efforts. Make no mistake then, even if the government has no plans, the insurance companies certainly will.

In thinking about sea-level rise, we need to remember that it is not just the normal level of the water at high tide that is of concern. More deadly, by far, is the ‘storm surge’, when tides and wind direction conspire to push the sea much deeper into coastal regions. In warmer climes, lowlying coastal regions are protected from such onslaughts by mangrove forests and coral reefs. Not only do such features protect our shores, they also provide a haven for wildlife. However, warmer and more acidic oceans are putting our reefs at risk, whilst human development threatens the mangroves.

50

A Little Book about Climate Change Extreme Weather

A similar story plays out when we consider another factor in climate change — the more extreme weather events that can cause flash floods and landslides. Again, nature comes to our aid here. Forested hillsides soak up rainfall and excess water gets slowed down, as it seeks lower ground. Meanwhile, the rivers and streams, if swollen by rainfall, find a natural overflow in flood plains and water meadows.

Once again, all such places are havens for wildlife. Such natural flood defences could probably endure the kinds of intense rainfall that we are seeing more of as the planet warms. But of course, very often the trees on the hillsides have been cut down, the flood plains have become farmland or housing and the rivers have been dredged and forced between narrow concrete embankments or even channelled underground. Such rivers may be a useless trickle in the summer and a raging torrent in the winter. The wildlife has gone, and what was once both a joy and a resource for humans has become a threat to life and property.

So the message to the individual should be obvious here. Be careful where you choose to live!

Remember

that

sewers

and

other

infrastructures can become unviable long before water is actually seeping into homes and businesses. Unfortunately, governments are only coming around very slowly, if at all, to the notion that it is better to work with nature than against her in these matters. The natural defences that I have described above are not seen as good for economic development. Too often it seems that nature’s silent protection is 51

A Little Book about Climate Change only appreciated once it is gone.

So when it comes to adaptation to sea-level rise and flooding, our concerns for climate change and for nature very much converge. Protecting and enhancing nature is both a means of mitigating the effects of climate change and a means to help us to adapt to its effects.

Flooding,

Food

Scarcity

and