Climate Talk

OneWorld has brought together expert panelists to respond to your questions and comments. Check out the questions, responses, and climate tips below. Or click here to share your questions and climate tips (or scroll to the bottom of this page).

RESPONSES

James: Hi Julie, while we have evidence for temperature variations, like the medieval warming period and little ice age, the warming over the past few decades has been much more dramatic. In addition, there isn’t an identifiable natural cause for recent temperature increases. What is evident is an increase in anthropogenic, or human caused, greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists have climate models to demonstrate potential causes of temperature variability (an increase in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, burning of fossil fuels, etc.). The only model that accurately demonstrates the observable temperature increases is the burning of fossil fuels. The debate is over, global warming is man made.

Zoë: Julie, I would recommend that you read through the latest series of IPCC reports, which have been prepared by hundreds of scientists from around the world. The majority of climate experts studying this issue have concluded that the warming we’re experiencing now—and associated changes—are indeed caused by human activity.

Janet: Scientific models that examine the warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution have separated out the human effects from the natural fluctuations and climate forcers, like volcanic eruptions. They found that they can only replicate the most recent warming if human beings are in the picture, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, largely from burning fossil fuels.

Juan: Actually, the evidence is not as weak as it used to be. The 4th assessment report of the IPCC, the global scientific body gathering the work of over a thousands scientist from around world since 1989, asserts with over 90% certainty that human activities are influencing climate change.

Although there is still 10% uncertainty, to choose inaction when the stakes are so high would be irresponsible. Now, I agree with you- climate change has happened before. But, that doesn't mean that we should just cross our arms and wait for it to hit us.

Last time our planet observed a climate shift of similar magnitude, we did not have 6 billion people on the planet. We need to respond accordingly, and if it is in our power to do something to mitigate the extend of climate change, why not do it? The science makes sense, we have the technology, and we are running out of resources. Choosing business as usual would be reckless.
...................................................................................................

Addressing Climate Change Challengers
Rick McGirr: I would like some help in being prepared to answer those who would debunk global warming (GW) as a myth. I've heard the following arguments, among others:

"Cows emit more greenhouse gas than cars."
"This warming trend is part of a natural planetary cycle."
"Natural biological processes, such as the rotting of plants, create more greenhouse gases than industry."
"You can shut down all the industry and take away everyone's vehicles, and it won't do anything to impact GW."
"The liberals are all in cahoots."
And this gem, straight from the mouth of everybody's hero, Rush Limbaugh: "Global warming isn't real. It isn't happening, and even if it were, so what?"

Recently, they covered GW on NPR's Talk of the Nation, Science Friday. One of the guests was asked in phone calls about a half-dozen common rebuttals such as those above, and the guest was aware and prepared to answer that each of these other possibilities has been studied and dismissed, and also put to rest some myths and misinformation.

I would like to be prepared to speak for the preservation of the planet, in lay terms. (I'm a piano player with an appreciation for science, but no great aptitude.) Please help me educate myself.

RESPONSES

James: I think I caught the same program (hurray for podcasts) and I believe the guest was from Environmental Defense. Check out their global warming site: http://fightglobalwarming.com/ You’ll find a lot of simple answers under the Science section.

Zoë: Rick, take a look through the executive summaries of the recent IPCC reports. I think you’ll see plenty of compelling, easy-to-understand findings that will help you communicate the urgency of the problem. I would also recommend a resource that Grist Magazine has compiled. They call it “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.”  Questions and answers are divided according to the scientific topics or the types of arguments you might encounter. There are plenty of helpful answers to many of your questions there.

Janet: I wish it all were a big ploy.  I might sleep better at night!  But if you want to read the consensus of some 2,500 scientists from around the world, check out the work of the aforementioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that confirms the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that it is human-caused. And for fast-moving commentary on some of the latest climate issues, you might be interested in the Real Climate blog, written by climate scientists.  Or, perhaps better yet for the laypeople out there, you might want to see Grist Magazine’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” page. It touches on a number of the questions raised in this dialogue.
...................................................................................................

Responding to Naysayers
Diana Raabe: What is the best way to respond to naysayers (such as those Rick McGirr refers to) without pontificating at length?!

RESPONSES

James: Hello Diana, There are naysayers and there are naysayers. Some people just want to argue, some have open minds, and others will not believe you -- no matter what. I think your first step is to figure out who you are talking to. If it’s James Inhofe, don’t waste your time. Otherwise, just know their arguments and a short version of the responses. You don’t need to talk their ear off, you just have to be right. It’s also OK to say, “I don’t know, but I’ll get back to you on that.” After all, you (most likely) are not a climate scientist – so they shouldn’t expect you to be.

Janet: Challenge the naysayers to find a single peer-reviewed scientific study refuting global warming.
...................................................................................................

Responding to the Right
Joseph R.:I would like to hear your response to the assault on human influenced climate change by spokesmen of the right wing: Hannity, Falwell, Rush, Drudge, etc. They seem to view the modern environmental movement as some sort of refuge for causeless socialists. This creation of doubt is the front line of the issue.

RESPONSE

Janet: I think dealing with climate change is no longer an “environmental” issue, but rather a civilization question.
________________________________________________________

EXPECTED IMPACTS & CONSEQUENCES

"At this point, what is already inevitable?"
Jeffrey Allen: Based on the amount of gases we've already put into the atmosphere, how much climate change is already inevitable, and what can we expect to experience as a result of it over the next 10 years... 50 years... 100 years? Thanks so much for taking the time to answer these questions!

RESPONSES

James: Jeff, good question. I think scientists, politicians, and all other stakeholders would like a clear-cut answer on this too. Inevitably, we are probably going to see a 1 to 2 degree C increase in global temperature. See the IPCC’s 4th assessment report for the list of problems that will most likely arise.

My prediction: In the next 10 years, we will see more impacts from climate change than we did in the past 10 years, but we will take more action against climate change than we did during the same period.

The past 10 years was a lot of talk -- this coming 10 years will be a lot of action. If we are successful (we meaning humans, not a specific party or interest group), the world will be a much more comfortable place in 50 to 100 years, than if we proceed as business as usual.

Janet: Hi Jeff, You ask the big question, but I’m not sure that’s one that we know the answer to. Can we save Glacier National Park from having to change its name in 30 years? I’m not sure. Can we do anything to help the bird species that no longer hatches in sync with the caterpillars they eat? Is there hope for the polar bears? How much warming can Greenland tolerate before melting entirely, causing a 23 foot rise in sea level? It’s precisely because we don’t know the exact answers to this type of question that we need to act now to cut our carbon emissions.

Juan: First the good news--It's not too late to avoid the unmanageable. Scientists estimate that we still have time to avoid climate disturbances beyond 2.5 degrees average. If we start acting today, we can stay within that threshold.

Temperature changes within that threshold, however, will still bring
changes such as increase frequency of extreme weather –heat waves, droughts, floods, etc-, mosquito-borne diseases at higher altitudes, and changes in biodiversity. The 'where' and 'when' are hard to predict, but we know these changes are already happening and will become stronger- they are unavoidable, and we need to start thinking of adaptation strategies.

Action is needed now to avoid passing the 2.5 degree mark, which could bring about some of the scarier scenarios outlined by the IPCC a few weeks ago.
...................................................................................................

"Climate change is hitting poor countries the hardest"
Claudia Schmitz: I'm writing my dissertation about how climate change is affecting development in Tanzania (as a case study) and I read that the IPCC has reported on this fact this week. I was trying to find anything about this on the IPCC web site but I couldn't. I would appreciate very much if you could help me finding this up-to-date information. Many thanks.

RESPONSES

James: Hello Claudia, You can find the IPCC second (for the 4th assessment – 2007) summary for policymakers that lays out the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability on their website – or directly here. Look for the impacts on Africa on page 10, however Tanzania is not specifically mentioned here. The full report will be released in the future. Also, check out UNDP and UNEP websites.

Zoë: Claudia, your dissertation topic is important and timely. A preliminary version of the IPCC report that you are looking for (“Summary for Policymakers” from Working Group II) is available on the IPCC website. I have been following disaster trends for several years now, and the linkages between climate change and increasingly-devastating weather-related disasters are becoming more evident all the time.

One of the main points on disasters and development is that the poor are most always hardest hit—they are often forced to live in vulnerable areas, usually lack insurance, have little money to purchase clean water or food, and may not have the means to evacuate in time. Disasters are one way of visualizing the myriad effects that climate change will have on developing countries such as Tanzania.

Janet: Hi Claudia. You’re right that there’s not much on Tanzania on the IPCC’s website. Summaries of two of the IPCC’s latest 2007 assessment are now on-line and receiving a lot of attention. From these you can get an idea of the bigger trends that Tanzania will likely face in the future, including melting glaciers, the impact of sea level rise, and the potential effect of higher temperatures on food production.
...................................................................................................

"Rising sea levels"
Megan Whitman: When can we expect to see significant sea level rise? What sacrifices are people going to have to make to slow this down? Thanks!

RESPONSES

James: Hello Megan, I really hope that we won’t see significant sea level rise. But if it were to happen, we would be looking at Greenland and Antarctica. The ice sheets sitting on top of these land masses have the biggest potential for increasing the sea level. The bad news: we are seeing glaciers melting at increasing rates in both places.

The good news: If we act now, the sacrifices won’t have to be as great. We need policies that decrease carbon intensive activities, increase carbon free energy, and ensure that everybody is on board. Much like eradicating extreme poverty, effectively addressing the pressing issues surrounding climate change would cost us less than a percent of our GDP.

Zoë: Megan, the report from IPCC Working Group I has good information on expected sea level rise. However, in the past year there have been some new findings that sea level rise could rise much faster than predicted by the IPCC (the latest data included in their report is from 2005). The main uncertainty surrounds the fate of the Iceland and Antarctic icesheets.

Rather than looking at sacrifices, we might look at the most cost-effective way to respond to climate change, which is through mitigation: anticipating the problem, rather than reacting to it after the fact. The Stern Review has a good economic analysis of this idea. And there is much positive action already happening. Cities are proactively reducing their energy demand and addressing climate change. And people are taking personal actions to understand and reduce their contributions to the problem, from eating locally to improving energy efficiency in their homes and offices.

Janet: The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in its latest 2007 report projects that by the end of this century we could see sea levels rise by as much as 59 centimeters, and potentially more. It is quite possible that this is an underestimate because of the increased acceleration of glacier melt, both in inland glaciers, and on larger ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To slow this down, we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.

Juan: Although scientists have been hesitant to predict the exact rate of sea level rise, there is consensus that ice caps are melting much faster than estimated. We know that the ice sheets in Greenland, if fully melted and holding all other variables constant, could raise sea levels by up to 7 meters (21 feet) – and collapse the deep-water cycle in the North Atlantic. Scientist estimate that it could take 1000 years for Greenland's icesheet to melt, while the West Antartica Ice Sheet (WAIS) could take less and add 2-4 meters to ocean levels. The feedback mechanisms are less clear.

In terms of changes and sacrifices, we will be certainly faced with a
reality that require us to radically change land use practices in
low-lying areas, and will force us to relocate not only communities at
risk, but also much of the unmeasured development we have witnessed in luxurious costal communities.
...................................................................................................

Food prices
Daniel Taghioff: Could you elaborate on the likely implications of climate change for future food prices? What are the implications at 0.5 degrees c . 1 degrees c, 1.5 degrees c and 2 degrees c + of warming?

What are the implications of this for the poor, particularly in the tropics?

What are the implications of this for the international development and aid communities?

What are the security implications of this, particularly in an age of nuclear proliferation?

What forms of political organization seem best suited to meet these challenges?

Finally, which level of cut in CO2 emissions in developed countries is congruent with ideas of global social justice?

RESPONSES

James: According to the recent IPCC report, crop productivity may increase (depending on the crop) in the mid to high latitudes with increases of 1 to 3 degrees C. After 3 degrees, there will most likely be declines in productivity (depending on region).
However, its bad news for the tropics and poor nations in general. Temperature increases at the 1 to 2 degree C level will decrease crop productivity.
Here’s a few more projections:
• An increase in drought affected areas
• Decreased water availability from mountain ranges
• A 30% increase in risk of extinction for plant and animal species
• Changes in entire ecosystems -- resulting in a negative impact for biodiversity, goods and services (aka our food and water supply)
• Costal erosion and sea level rise
• Disproportionate negative impacts on developing nations vs. developed nations
• Increase in malnutrition, diarrhea, cardio-respiratory, and infectious disease
• Increase in conflicts as resources become scarcer, especially in areas already prone to droughts.
Climate change is a clear example of market failure. In order to address it, we should set up frameworks to correct this failure. Kyoto hasn’t quite cut it, but a second iteration could be promising. It’s also important for the United States to take a leadership role and work to get China and India on board with carbon limits.
Most scientists agree that we must not double our pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide. Right now, we are on target to double, triple, or even quadruple them by the end of the century.

Janet: Though they have contributed the least to the warming of the planet, it is likely that the poor will bear some of the heaviest burdens of the effects of global warming. Scientists have largely talked about a 70-90 percent reduction in carbon emissions as a goal to help prevent climate catastrophe. The oft-stated goal is to not exceed 2 degrees of global temperature increase. It will take more than just energy ministers to make this happen—we also need to get agricultural, economic, trade, and transportation officials on board figuring out how to cut emissions and cope with climate changes already underway, not to mention health officials and family planning agencies.

Climate change is an incredibly important security issue. This week the U.N. Security Council focused on climate change for the first time. In 2003 a major report called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” was produced by analysts at the Pentagon. While some governments have been distracted by terrorism, global warming may pose the bigger threat.

Juan: Discussing food prices is tricky. The food market is already subject to market distortions (agricultural subsidies, control of seeds by a oligopoly, etc), and changes on price are more likely to be due to speculation than to actual production fluctuations. You could assume that prices will increase due to climate variations affecting production –but agricultural subsidies and international trade could disguise the impact of local weather conditions. The current trend of
'food as oil' will make things even more complicated. Food production in the developing world, however, will be under much more stress.

The changes in temperature per se are not the concern, the main problem is the changes in frequency of extreme weather making vulnerable areas subject to more frequent droughts, floods, heat waves, and making potable water more scarce. In other words, the areas that are already experiencing food supply problems are going to suffer even more. Development agencies and other international organizations are just starting to consider climate change in how they distribute aid. The World Bank, for example, published a document outlining possible approaches to include climate change-related risk in existing risk management assessments.

The UK Agency for Development has already expressed that climate change might reduce aid effectiveness in reaching the UN Millennium Development Goals. The impact of climate change in the developing world requires an immediate change in the approach to development, and agencies are starting to mainstream climate change adaptation in pertinent international aid programs. Regarding international institutions, effective adaptation to climate change requires community response. So, no international agency has taken the lead on adaptation efforts, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, promoted the Nairobi Strategy at COP12, the last meeting of the UN FCCC; the strategy seeks to coordinate the work of UN Agencies on climate change issues, from mitigation and capacity building to adaptation. It is best for now to place emphasis on local, context-sensitive strategies, and avoid a centralized
approach to dealing with a local problem.
...................................................................................................

Impact on Food: Response Daniel Taghioff's Questions
Marilyn Borchardt: Whatever we might say about the impact of climate change on the poor is speculation. There are so many variables. However, it is safe to assume that temperature increases will displace many poor people living in coastal and low-lying areas including in Bangladesh and on islands. There are many rich people who also live in coastal areas, but we need not worry about them because they will have the financial resources to make the necessary changes in their lives. The implications for the poor and those who work with the poor are that there will be more displaced people, more migration, and the need for more temporary services, though stretching out over many years as continuing waves of people need relocation assistance.

An optimist would say that we will make the necessary changes to prevent much of such dislocation. But even if we are not experiencing long-term global warming, but rather simply cyclical thawing to be followed by cooling of our planet, there will still be hardship for those living in low-lying areas during a rise in sea level.

As far as food shortages, our experience is that, while there are temporary shortages in certain areas, worldwide there is not a shortage of food. And we have not reached our capacity in food production globally. The misery suffered by the poor of the world is because they are poor; not because there is a shortage of food. If food prices rise at times of global warming (or global cooling), that rise may be attributed more to tight price control by multinational grain conglomerates than to climactic conditions. For example, the current gold rush mania of corn production for biofuel conversion has already increased the price of corn in Mexico to the point that large numbers of people are protesting that they can't afford the price of tortillas. http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1649 And at the time of President Bush's visit to Brazil in March 2007, peasant women protested against biofuel production saying the poor refuse to grow fuel for the rich." http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1654

It's a yet another great myth of obfuscation to say that climate change will cause the poor to starve. The poor starve because they are poor in a global economy controlled by the rich. Allow them to receive fair compensation for their labor and they will no longer starve.
Marilyn Borchardt, Food First
marbor@foodfirst.org

RESPONSES

Janet: These are some very good points.  We in the West certainly are not helping the poor food producers with our agricultural subsidies.  The concern is that global warming will exacerbate an already precarious situation.  For instance, with a 1-meter rise in sea level, Bangladesh could lose half of its riceland.  When temperatures rise above optimal levels, crop yields tend to shrink.  Agricultural scientists have found that each 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature above the norm lowers crop yields of wheat, rice, and corn, the world’s staples, by about 10 percent. World grain stocks are at their lowest level in more than 30 years.  And prices are rising, in part related to this recent “ethanol euphoria” in the United States, which pits low-income food importers against wealthy car owners.

Zoë: To follow up on Marilyn’s points, I would rec