Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Syt]

Well, there's the lovely fact that Europe is warming up twice as fast as other continents: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1137867

Oh, and: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/07/14/heat-waves-the-uk-isn-t-ready-for-the-extreme-temperatures-that-are-coming/d54d316a-21fd-11ee-8994-4b2d0b694a34_story.html

The UK Isn't Ready for the Heat That's Coming

The world is getting hot. Last month was the planet's hottest June on record, according to an analysis from the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service, with substantially higher-than-usual temperatures recorded on land and sea. The highest average daily global temperature was reached on Monday, July 3, smashing a record held since 2016. A new highest-ever was reached the next day, then broken yet again two days later.

Considering we're only in very early El Nino, a naturally occurring warming weather pattern, we can expect more heat records to come. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, has warned that the recent spate of broken records is a sign that "climate change is out of control."

Indeed, we are racing toward the 1.5C warming target set in Paris in 2015. As the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) made clear at the end of last year, there's still "no credible pathway to 1.5C in place." Ideally we never get to that point, and we must take radical, urgent action to limit warming as much as possible. But we also need to start adapting to the world that lies beyond 1.5C.

This means leaders must start thinking about sustainable cooling, which has so far been a blind spot in net-zero strategies and in the UN's sustainable development goals. A new study, published in Nature Sustainability, took a look at how going to 2C from 1.5C of warming would affect cooling demand, and found stark lessons for us all.

The paper looked at increases in "cooling degree days," a widely used indicator to examine warming and quantify the demand for cooling. CDDs are calculated by comparing the mean daily outdoor temperature with a standard temperature, in this case 18C. A day with a mean outdoor temperature of 28C, for example, has 10 CDDs. The more CDDs, the hotter the place.

The countries with the largest absolute increase in cooling demand between 1.5C and 2C are the ones that are already really hot — Central African Republic, Burkina Faso and Mali. There will be huge implications for human health and livelihoods in these regions that are already bearing the brunt of climate change and lack the resources needed to adapt. That's a climate justice issue: As of 2021, Africa had contributed just 2.8% of the world's cumulative CO2 emissions. Yet heat will be a huge barrier to its development. A 2022 study found that extreme heat has already suppressed economic growth by more than 5% a year in tropical countries such as Mali.

But that doesn't mean developed nations are insulated from the heat. The research also found that the UK, Ireland and Switzerland will face the highest relative increases in uncomfortably hot days, excluding extreme events such as heat waves. With life and architecture in these countries traditionally steered toward staying warm, a huge adaptation challenge lies ahead as people will increasingly need to keep cool.

Last year's heat waves across Europe really brought home how ill-prepared we are for hot days. A paper, published on Monday, revealed that more than 61,000 heat-related deaths occurred in Europe between May 30 and Sept. 4, 2022. When the mercury in the UK breached 40C for the first time in July 2022, the London Fire Brigade had their busiest day since World War II.

Though heat planning has advanced since 2003's devastating summer, it's clearly not kept pace with climate change, and plenty of infrastructural issues remain, such as the proliferation of overheating houses and care homes.

"Our concern is that the go-to solution will be air conditioning," says Radhika Khosla, co-author of the CDD paper and an associate professor at the University of Oxford's Smith School. As I've written before, air conditioning is a disaster for the planet, containing coolants with more global warming potential than CO2 and drawing on precious energy resources which — in fossil-fuel reliant grids — only leads to a vicious cycle of more warming and more air-conditioning demand.

Better options are more passive solutions, some of which have been used in traditional architecture for a long time, such as artificial or natural shade, building features such as wind catchers and solar chimneys to create sufficient ventilation, and new innovations including ultra-reflective paint. "If we do use air conditioning," Khosla tells me, "it's important that the units are of the most efficient standard and powered by renewable energy, in combination with passive and low energy options."

But those interventions will take time to roll out, and the problem is that sustainable cooling hasn't really been widely discussed yet. Much of the focus in the UK's net-zero strategy has been on decarbonizing heat. Though the heat and building strategy does acknowledge the "potential future demand of cooling," it doesn't lay out any associated policies. Meanwhile, on the global stage, demand for cooling doesn't appear in the UN's 2030 sustainable development agenda, its 17 goals or 169 targets. Considering the established links between heat and its negative impacts on well-being and economies, that's a major oversight.

The good news is that the tide appears to be turning. On July 3, the Environmental Audit Committee opened an inquiry into UK heat resilience and adaptation strategies. The UNEP also hopes to make cooling a priority at COP28, launching a Global Cooling Stocktake Report alongside developing a Global Cooling Pledge with conference host the United Arab Emirates.

It's reassuring to see focus shifting toward sustainable cooling, but there's no time to waste. In many countries, the heat is already here.

More From Bloomberg Opinion:

• The Corporate Bankruptcy Wave Will Get Even Uglier: Chris Bryant

• A 'Made in Germany' Solution to a Climate-Crisis Problem: Javier Blas

• Meet the $4 Billion AI Superstars That Google Lost: Parmy Olson

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.

More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

Austria (and esp. Vienna) is in a similar situation. We've had a week of 32-36° weather, got a breather (28) yesterday, and from today till end of next week we're back to 30-34° daily highs. Nights rarely go under 20°, and my building's courtyard is generally storing between 2 to 4 extra degrees over night, so even overnight cooling off is limited. Plus, those brick walls are really good at storing the heat once they've warmed up - usually takes a while to cool off when the heat breaks. Might be 20° outside, and I'm still at 26 or so inside, going down by 1 per day. Since I can't reasonably install cooling in this old timey place (these box windows are nice, but suck at keeping heat out, or installing a cheap mobile unit, and I can't install a "proper" split one with an outside unit because of a) needs approval from the building board/all owners and b) noise concerns. I'm on the lookout for an affordable place with better insulation/energy efficiency and a bit more greenery (and cooling, tbh).

[mongers]

The widespread anti-vax and anti-restrictions nonsense during the pandemic has pretty much killed all my hopes for a political/societal solution, heck, even mitigation, to climate change.

Why? Because it showed the unbelievable lengths the human mind can go to convince itself that maintaining of habits and comforts is fine and the right logical and moral choice. An entire ethos grown out of people's unwillingness to temporarily adapt new ways and to dismiss the fears which were raised by the calls for these changes.

Wrapping so-called solutions into the wrapper or prestige and indulgence papers (like EVs) can only go so far. Either science finds a way which will make non-pollution the comfortable and profitable way, or we are screwed.

Tamas, sadly I'm pretty much on the same page as you here.

[mongers]

Austria (and esp. Vienna) is in a similar situation. We've had a week of 32-36° weather, got a breather (28) yesterday, and from today till end of next week we're back to 30-34° daily highs. Nights rarely go under 20°, and my building's courtyard is generally storing between 2 to 4 extra degrees over night, so even overnight cooling off is limited. Plus, those brick walls are really good at storing the heat once they've warmed up - usually takes a while to cool off when the heat breaks. Might be 20° outside, and I'm still at 26 or so inside, going down by 1 per day. Since I can't reasonably install cooling in this old timey place (these box windows are nice, but suck at keeping heat out, or installing a cheap mobile unit, and I can't install a "proper" split one with an outside unit because of a) needs approval from the building board/all owners and b) noise concerns. I'm on the lookout for an affordable place with better insulation/energy efficiency and a bit more greenery (and cooling, tbh).

Yes adapting to climate change will necessity for many people if they want to be less uncomfortable now and in the future.

[Josquius]

The widespread anti-vax and anti-restrictions nonsense during the pandemic has pretty much killed all my hopes for a political/societal solution, heck, even mitigation, to climate change.

Why? Because it showed the unbelievable lengths the human mind can go to convince itself that maintaining of habits and comforts is fine and the right logical and moral choice. An entire ethos grown out of people's unwillingness to temporarily adapt new ways and to dismiss the fears which were raised by the calls for these changes.

Wrapping so-called solutions into the wrapper or prestige and indulgence papers (like EVs) can only go so far. Either science finds a way which will make non-pollution the comfortable and profitable way, or we are screwed.

The trends are positive. The rate of change is speeding up a lot.
The problem is less in convincing people of the benefits of change, we should be able to do that, and rather more in reactionary knee jerk stuff that actively wants to make things worse for the purpose of owning teh libs or whatever.

[Sheilbh]

The widespread anti-vax and anti-restrictions nonsense during the pandemic has pretty much killed all my hopes for a political/societal solution, heck, even mitigation, to climate change.

I have totally the opposite view. We shouldn't allow a very small but very vocal minority shape our view of society or humanity. In the UK less than 10% of people had a negative opinion of the vaccines (about 5% actively anti-vax). The vast majority of people complied with (and supported) restrictions without being compelled to - it didn't rely on security forces being out on the streets. People complied because they thought it was the right thing to do and because of social peer pressure.

I'd also separate out scientific/technological and social. The vaccine was a technological solution to covid, lockdowns and restrictions and changes to behaviour were social - and I saw some writers criticise the idea of looking for a technological solution or pinning our hopes on that, as opposed to more permament social changes. I think you see it in the Guardian on those weight loss drugs and also actually on cooling - in much of Europe we need cooling as much as we need heating and it's slightly insane that it's still seen as an indulgence/luxury in many places.

But I'm still broadl on the technological side - including for energy transition. We broadly know what we need to do - but it will cost about 3% of GDP over the next few decades. From a European perspective as well we don't matter very much (leaving loss and damage aside which we absolutely should support). Whether or not the world is able to meet the goals we've set is largely going to be answered in China which is about four times EU (plus UK) emissions - even on a per capita basis China is higher than Europe. But also India which is just set to overtake the EU (plus UK). I think China is serious on its goals and the other big question is can India grow without the type of emissions increases that China's seen. But Europe is not that relevant on the emissions picture and we're not a centre of green energy technology or manufacturing.

In Europe - this is the EU only as it's in writing or constitutions there but also applies to the UK - the biggest thing we need to do is get rid of the self-imposed debt rules that make it impossible to meet our net zero targets, far less work on adaptation. And we should support loss and damage funds to help the rest of the world (and pay for historic European emissions) - though I get that's a bigger ask politically:


Worth noting that in both the EU and UK the installation of renewables is only just about recovered back to the levels it was at in 2010-ish before we wasted a decade fetishising austerity. We were in Europe installing over 25 GW of solar capacity a year by 2010-11 (and it was on an upward trend), by the middle of the 2010s it was under 5 GW because of ruinous debt politics.

Edit: I think on climate and on a lot else - in Europe everything runs through the massive amount of self-harm we chose to do in the 2010s through austerity.

[crazy canuck]

But what happens to your analysis when you factor in N. America?

[Sheilbh]

But what happens to your analysis when you factor in N. America?

North America and Europe combined are still lower than China.

China's emissions are about double the US and Canada. We need to do our bit and as countries that industrialised and became rich early we need to support loss and damage funds. Globally America is essential on the financing side especially - and probably on the end use products. Our role is the supporting cast and while we need to get to net zero a lot of what we need to be doing is supporting China, India and poorer countries.

But in terms of where the really important decisions are being made - and, at this point, where the hubs of green energy technology and manufacturing are - the key decisions will be made in Beijing and Delhi, not Brussels and DC. We need to do our bit but we are not that important and nothing we do will be as significant as if China is able to meet its ambitious targets (and currently China is annually installing more solar capacity than all of Europe combined) and whether India is able to basically skip the carbon intensive route to growth and move directly to a low carbon model because the worst possible news would be that its emissions follow China's path. I think our discourse and understanding on climate is still very 90s, 00s when we could have shaped what energy transition and the path to net zero looked like. But we didn't - and now, hopefully, China and India will.

Unless somewhere in the West develops a solution that can remove carbon from the atmosphere in vast quantities (and it might).

[Legbiter]

But in terms of where the really important decisions are being made - and, at this point, where the hubs of green energy technology and manufacturing are - the key decisions will be made in Beijing and Delhi, not Brussels and DC.

Yeah.

I'm not a fan of the constant demoralization some engage in but I understand the deep spiritual need it fulfills. Sin should never be condoned, nor tolerated, because your neighbor's sin is not a private matter, God's wrath is implacable and hits everyone equally if it is left unchecked and not repented of.

[crazy canuck]

But what happens to your analysis when you factor in N. America?

North America and Europe combined are still lower than China.

China's emissions are about double the US and Canada. We need to do our bit and as countries that industrialised and became rich early we need to support loss and damage funds. Globally America is essential on the financing side especially - and probably on the end use products. Our role is the supporting cast and while we need to get to net zero a lot of what we need to be doing is supporting China, India and poorer countries.

But in terms of where the really important decisions are being made - and, at this point, where the hubs of green energy technology and manufacturing are - the key decisions will be made in Beijing and Delhi, not Brussels and DC. We need to do our bit but we are not that important and nothing we do will be as significant as if China is able to meet its ambitious targets (and currently China is annually installing more solar capacity than all of Europe combined) and whether India is able to basically skip the carbon intensive route to growth and move directly to a low carbon model because the worst possible news would be that its emissions follow China's path. I think our discourse and understanding on climate is still very 90s, 00s when we could have shaped what energy transition and the path to net zero looked like. But we didn't - and now, hopefully, China and India will.

Unless somewhere in the West develops a solution that can remove carbon from the atmosphere in vast quantities (and it might).

I was thinking more in terms of the reaction against vaccines and experts explaining best practices. 

There is a real danger that progress that has been made will be reversed if the GOP gains real power.  The nonsense we see in Red State legislating against efforts to move away from fossil fuels will be amped up.

[mongers]

I think it's a mistake to tack on the anti-vaxxers and their ilk into a debate about climate policy, Covid-19 just brought out the '10% anti-science nut-job' into the open.

Going back to Tamas's other point, I see it as most politicians and most people will walk hand in hand into this climate and environmental catastrophe because they're not willing to make significant changes to our behaviours, life in the West is just too comfortable.   

[Sheilbh]

I was thinking more in terms of the reaction against vaccines and experts explaining best practices. 

Again it's a bigger majority but I think it is really important that we remember they are a minority. Even in the US I think it's about 20-25% (though obviously they have power and influence because of their outsize base in the GOP).

But of the unvaccinated generally, the largest groups in the US are minorities - which I think has more to do with needs, ability (or understanding that you are able) to access care and whether or not there's effective public health messaging in and for those communities. I think it is seductively easy to focus on vaccines just as a culture war or frothy politics issue - because for some it absolutely is. I think we could do with spending more time thinking about the larger groups who, for often material reasons, weren't vaccinated - if only because that is a larger group and if you think vaccines are good and save lives that matters.

I think it's similar with climate. I think the time and energy spent fulminating about rolling coal would probably be better spent thinking about and trying to address the needs of, say, an elderly person or someone who's self-employed in rural areas and relies on a car. Because there's a lot more of them and, I suspect, they're a bigger bedrock of net zero scepticism (in the US but globally too) - and it's justified, the energy transition will be disruptive for their lives and has the potential to make things more expensive for them.

There is a real danger that progress that has been made will be reversed if the GOP gains real power.  The nonsense we see in Red State legislating against efforts to move away from fossil fuels will be amped up.

Sure - but at the same time Texas is becoming a hub for green energy in the US (while still being the largest emitter). The vast majority of IRA projects will end up being in red states too and I think the IRA is a transformative model.

Also I think the politics on this is changing. Climate and energy transition on their own terms I think will still have the GOP reversing things. I think the fact that green energy tech and manufacturing have been linked to national security and anti-China trade policies (and that, for want of a better phrase, there's now a green energy industrial complex) we'll see more focused on that. I think anti-China sentiment, protectionism and national security is a more durable political combo (and coalition) in the US in the way that previous climate messages haven't been (and a huge set of new factories and manufacturing jobs because of the IRA introduces a bigger constituency who will care).

It'll still piss off Europeans because it'll be all carrots - loads of subsidies and tax bungs, protectionist policies etc - and no sticks (the opposite of Europe's preferred approach ), but from a climate/carbon perspective I think it'll be pretty transformative. For example, the IRA basically increases funding to renewable energy markets by about 50% and the US is already a big market.

This is also wherre I think globally, US financial power is key - they can just leverage more money than anyone else could ever hope to.

[Jacob]

I think it's a mistake to tack on the anti-vaxxers and their ilk into a debate about climate policy, Covid-19 just brought out the '10% anti-science nut-job' into the open.

Why is it a mistake, do you think?

I'm definitely seeing signs of active anti-environmentalism populism forming in North America - rolling coal, anti e-vehicle and bicycling sentiment, anti-15-minute-city sentiment, and the like. Maybe it won't get much traction, but the sentiment is definitely there.

Going back to Tamas's other point, I see it as most politicians and most people will walk hand in hand into this climate and environmental catastrophe because they're not willing to make significant changes to our behaviours, life in the West is just too comfortable.   

Yeah, that's probably true.

[Syt]

Selling people on potentially tough measures to lower CO2 output doesn't win votes (yet?), unfortunately.

Meanwhile, the view from Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/climate/climate-heat-models-1.6905606

After Earth's hottest week on record, extreme weather surprises everyone — even climate scientists

We're in 'uncharted territory' with heat and extreme weather events models can't always predict

[Legbiter]

Going back to Tamas's other point, I see it as most politicians and most people will walk hand in hand into this climate and environmental catastrophe because they're not willing to make significant changes to our behaviours, life in the West is just too comfortable.

You seem to need surprisingly little per capita GDP to still maintain modern civilization. Bangladesh has a per capita just a bit over 2000 dollars yet they have electricity and smartphones. For reference Canada has a per capita GDP of close to 53,000 this year. Sure you'll have to turn in your car for one of those thirdie scooters to match the overall lifestyle but it's surprising to me just how little money is needed per se to still be "modern". Their carbon footprint is comparatively excellent.

Of course if everyone in Canada took a hit to their quality of life which put them into the shoes of an average Bangladeshi I think they would consider it a massive catastrophe, on par with surviving the aftermath of a medium-sized global nuclear war.

[Jacob]

That's an interesting observation Legbiter. I wonder where the substantial differences are in both GDP and carbon emissions.

How much is purchasing power parity differences, how much is efficiencies from population density vs size of country, how much is heavy industry/ cultural production/ agriculture/ high tech/ etc, and so on