Heat and drought would rank high on this list. The Middle East is heating twice as fast as the global average. Egypt and Iraq are especially vulnerable to sea level rise. Some of the consequent threats can only be dealt with by inter-governmental cooperation. But that kind of cooperation is hard to come by as things now stand.

An example of a cross-border problem is the substantial reliance of numerous MENA nations on imported food, especially grains, which renders them vulnerable to global food price fluctuations caused by climate-related events (or wars) in other regions.

We saw this problem in the Russia-Ukraine War, which threatened Middle East wheat supplies. But climate-drive mega-droughts could have similar implications.

MENA countries are not well positioned to deal with climate change impacts, they point out, given that governments tend to be highly centralized, with power concentrated in the hands of oligarchs or juntas dependent directly or indirectly on oil and gas. The oligarchs are out for themselves, seeking “rents” from oil-rich countries where they don’t have such mineral wealth themselves. They exclude from decision-making grass-roots organizations, workers, the poor and women, who are often on the front lines of global heating and know better than the air-conditioned, petroleum-swigging elites how dangerous it is. All this is true for individual countries. Imagine getting them to cooperate on climate resilience or the green energy transition across borders.

The oligarchs of the region promote water-intensive crops like citrus fruits for export even in arid countries, because they can make money on the exports, and even though their countries have to import a lot of food. That is, they could put in staples like grain instead of citrus fruits, but then they wouldn’t make money from exports. Their people would, however, be less hungry.

For another example, they say, the elites in Tunisia concentrate on olive cultivation for the world market (it is the third largest producer). But there are so many olive orchards and so few of any other sort of crop that the country is making difficulties for itself. Monocultures are especially vulnerable to disease outbreaks or global price fluctuations. The olive orchards drink up the country’s agricultural water, making it hard for farmers to put in other crops.

Embed from Getty Images
An irrigation system is used in an olive grove located in Siliana, Tunisia, on May 10, 2024. Farmers face a major problem in keeping their fields productive due to water stress and drought. (Photo by Chedly Ben Ibrahim/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

In Libya, the army controls much of the economy. The country is heavily dependent on oil exports, and suffers when petroleum prices plummet. The country imports 75% of its food, so if anything disrupts the global food supply chain, Libyans are in big trouble. Petroleum is mostly used to fuel vehicles, but as the world electrifies and goes to EVs, Libyans will be up the creek if they don’t find another source of wealth.

There are five big categories of cross-country threats, they say:

1.The Biophysical: “risks for trans-boundary ecosystems, such as international river basins, oceans and the atmosphere.” They give the example of Turkey’s dam-building at the headwaters of the Euphrates, which is threatening water flows in Iraq, which depends on two large rivers for survival. Climate change is also reducing flow. Iraq could be in big trouble over this trans-boundary problem.

2. Financial. Foreign direct investment in the region could fall substantially because of climate impacts, hampering infrastructure projects. Lack of infrastructural adaptation could hurt efforts to come to terms with climate change.

3. Trade: “Potential risks to international trade, such as the import and export of climate-sensitive crops and implications for food security.” MENA imports 50% of its food from the outside, and if there are droughts elsewhere in the world things could turn very dangerous.

4. People-Centered: They point to the millions of displaced people in the region. Half of Syrians had to move house during the Civil War, in which a major drought was probably implicated. Some 11 million Sudanese have been displaced by the current civil war, in a population of 48 million. They don’t say so, but the Nile Delta in Egypt is very populous (60 million people) and very low-lying, at risk from the rising waters of the Mediterranean. God knows where they will go.

5. Geopolitical. This term refers to regional conflict. We see this (this is me, not the report) in Lebanon, where Israel’s attacks have displaced 1.2 million people. There are only about 4.5 million Lebanese.

While Europe has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to help MENA countries begin the transition to solar and wind energy, it has offered very little money to help Middle Eastern countries become more resilient in the face of climate change.

The authors note that the Middle East and North Africa is a diverse geographical area. It has its famous deserts but also mountain ranges, green valleys like Lebanon’s Biqa’ (now being bombed by Israel), long river valleys, mangrove stands along the seas, and swamps in southern Iraq.

The way contemporary analysts categorize the Middle East, it stretches from Iran in the east to Morocco in the far west, and from Syria in the north to Yemen in the south. Nearly 500 million people inhabit the area, and many states within it still have high birth rates, giving it millions of youths. The median age is something like 22 or 24, compared to 38.5 for the United States. Like India and Africa, it is young.

Some parts of the region are desperately poor, others are fabulously wealthy. Outside the petroleum states, they point out, parts of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Libya, are low-income, conflict-impacted societies facing severe challenges like human displacement and acute poverty. Simultaneously, middle-income nations like Morocco and Egypt are proactively exploring business opportunities within the global green transition.

Morocco and Turkey are virtually the only countries in the area that have had some success transitioning their grids to sustainable sources of energy, though much poorer Morocco is more advanced in wind and solar, while Turkey depends more heavily on hydroelectricity.

(The Conversation) – Two years ago, when the curtain fell on the COP27 summit in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, developing nations on the frontline of climate change had something meaningful to celebrate.

The creation of a new fund for responding to loss and damage was agreed after a hard-fought diplomatic effort, spearheaded by a group of small island developing states (sometimes known as the Sids). The fund would provide much needed support for climate-vulnerable nations faced with a spiralling human and financial toll from sea-level rise, extreme temperatures, droughts, wildfires, and intensifying floods and storms.

Yet two years on, the world’s wealthiest nations – also the largest carbon emitters – are still dragging their feet. They’ve not followed up their pledges with anywhere near the finance required.

Some nations, particularly the 39 Sids, which include places like Barbados, Grenada, Fiji and Vanuatu, are uniquely vulnerable to climate change and are already paying the price.

Sky-high ocean temperatures created the conditions for Hurricane Beryl to develop in July this year, as the earliest-forming Category 5 hurricane on record in the Caribbean. As oceans warm up, climate science tells us that this rapid intensification is becoming more common.

The island nation of Fiji, best known as a tropical paradise, has experienced a frightening series of storms over recent years, linked to climate change. Cyclone Winston in 2016, one of the most intense on record, caused widespread flooding and lead to the loss of 44 lives.

This episode reduced Fiji’s GDP growth by 1.4 percentage points. According to the Asian Development Bank, ongoing losses from climate change could reach 4% of Fiji’s annual GDP by 2100, as higher temperatures and more extreme weather hold back growth.

This isn’t an isolated problem. Tropical cyclones and hurricanes have long battered small islands, but what is new is how often the most extreme storms and floods are happening, as well as our improved ability to measure their economic effects.

Direct and indirect impacts

Our latest research looked at extreme weather events affecting 35 small island developing nations. We first collected information about the direct consequences of these extreme weather events: the damaged homes, the injured people, and the bridges that must be rebuilt.

We then looked at how these events have affected GDP growth and public finances. These changes are not felt immediately, but rather as the economy stalls, tourism dries up, and expensive recovery plans inhibit spending in other areas.

In all, from 2000 to 2020, these direct and indirect impacts may have cost small island states a total of US$141 billion. That works out to around US$2,000 per person on average, although this figure underplays just how bad things can get in some places. Hurricane Maria in 2017 caused damage to the Caribbean island of Dominica worth more than double its entire GDP. That amounted to around US$20,000 per person, overnight. Almost a decade later, the country is still struggling with one of the largest debt burdens on earth at over 150% of GDP.

Of these huge aggregate losses across all the small island development states, around 38% are attributable to climate change. That’s according to calculations we made based on “extreme event attribution” studies, which estimate the degree to which greenhouse gas emissions influenced extreme weather events.

“Fiji Superstorm,” Digital, Midjourney / Clip2Comic, 2024

What is clear is that small island economies are among the worst affected by severe weather. These island states have three to five times more climate-related loss and damage than other states, as a percentage of government revenues. That’s true even for wealthier small island states, like the Bahamas and Barbados, where loss and damage is four times greater than other high-income countries. For all small island nations, the economic impacts will increase, with “attributable” losses from extreme weather reaching US$75 billion by 2050 if global temperatures hit 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Our research helps us to see how far short the richer nations driving climate change are falling in their efforts to both curb emissions and to compensate the nations harmed by their failure to prevent climate change.

Developed countries need to pay up

One of the key discussions at the forthcoming COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, will be the “new collective quantified goal”. This is the technical name to describe how much money wealthy countries will need to contribute to help vulnerable nations to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

That overall goal must also include a target to finance small islands and other vulnerable countries, with billions more needed per year in the new loss and damage fund. Given the extent of actual and likely losses, nothing less than ambition on the scale of a “modern Marshall Plan” for these states will do.

In addition to this extra financing, the fund will need to work effectively to support the most climate vulnerable nations and populations when severe weather occurs. This can be done in a few ways.

The fund could create a budget support mechanism that can help small island states and other vulnerable countries deal with loss of income and the negative effects on growth. It could make sure loss and damage funds can be released quickly, and ensure support is channelled to those who need it the most. It could also make more concessional finance available for recovery, especially for the most adversely affected sectors like agriculture and tourism.

The world has a troubling history of missing self-imposed targets on climate finance and emissions reduction. But the stakes are ever higher now, and any target for loss and damage finance will need to be sufficient to deal with the challenges posed already by climate change, and in the years to come.

Emily Wilkinson, Principal Research Fellow, ODI Global; Ilan Noy, Chair in the Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Matt Bishop, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, University of Sheffield, and Vikrant Panwar, Senior Climate and Disaster Risk Finance Specialist, ODI Global

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – In the last few days, a seasonal weather system known in Spain as the “cold drop” or DANA (an acronym of depresión aislada en niveles altos: isolated depression at high levels) has caused heavy rain and flooding across Spain’s Mediterranean coast and in Andalusia, especially in the Valencian Community, Castilla-La Mancha and the Balearic Islands. The storm has left hundreds dead and many more missing, with immense damage in the affected areas.

50 years ago, a DANA occurred every three or four years, typically in November. Today, they can happen all year round.

How does a DANA form?

These storms are formed in the same way as Atlantic hurricanes or typhoons in China. The difference is that the Mediterranean is smaller than these areas, and so storms have a shorter path, and store less energy and water vapour.

Decades ago, warm sea surfaces at the end of summer would cause water to evaporate into the atmosphere. Today, the sea surface is warm all year, constantly sending massive amounts of water vapour up into the atmosphere.

The poles are also much warmer now than they were 50 years ago. As a result, the polar jet stream – the air current that surrounds the Earth at about 11,000 metres above sea level – is weakened and, like any slowly flowing current, has meanders. These bring cold air, usually from Greenland, into the high atmosphere over Spain.

The evaporated water rising off the sea meets this very cold air and condenses. The Earth’s rotation causes the rising air to rotate counterclockwise, and the resulting condensation releases huge quantities of water.

This combination of factors causes torrential, concentrated rains to fall on Spain, specifically on the Balearic Islands and the Mediterranean coast, sometimes reaching as far inland as the Sierra de Segura mountains in Andalucia and the Serrania de Cuenca mountains in Castilla la Mancha and Aragón. These storms can move in very fast, and are extremely violent.

On occasions, this Mediterranean water vapour has moved as far as the Alps, crossing its western point and causing downpours in Central Europe.

Warming oceans, warming poles

Many years ago, humans discovered a gigantic source of energy: 30 million years worth of the sun’s energy, stored under the ground by plants and animals. Today, we are burning through this resource fast.

This fossilised energy source is made up of carbon compounds: coal, hydrocarbons and natural gas. By burning them, we release polyatomic molecules such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and other compounds. Once released into the atmosphere, these trap some of the heat radiating from the earth’s soil and seas, returning it to the planet’s surface.

This process is what causes climate change, and it can occur naturally. When these molecules, especially methane, are stored in continental ocean slopes, the water cools and the carbon dioxide captured by the waves is trapped inside. As the planet cools and sea levels fall, methane is eventually released into the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms up, warming the sea, and the sea releases CO₂ which amplifies the effect of the methane. The planet then gets warmer and warmer, causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.

This alternation of cold and hot has occurred eight times over the last million years.

No end in sight for fossil fuels

Today we are forcing this process by emitting huge quantities of polyatomic gases ourselves. The question is whether we can limit these emissions. So far, this has been impossible.

To this we can add the fact that by 2050 there will be about two billion more human beings on the planet, who will also need food, housing and transport. This means more chemical fertilisers, cement, petrol, diesel and natural gas will be consumed, leading to further polyatomic gases being released.

Various measures to limit the burning of carbon compounds are falling short, or developing very slowly. Hopes for electric cars, for example, have been greatly diminished in recent years.

In Europe progress is being made in solar and wind energy, but electricity only makes up around a third of the energy consumed. Europe is also the only region making real progress on alternative electricity generation – much of China’s progress is being offset by its continued construction of coal-fired power plants.

Despite some large, high-profile projects, the reality is that we will continue to burn carbon compounds for many decades to come. This means the concentration of polyatomic gases in the atmosphere will increase over the next century, and with it the temperature of the planet, leading to more DANAs, hurricanes, typhoons and floods.

Climate adaptation is vital

What we are left with is adaptation, which is much more manageable as it does not require international agreements.

In Spain, for instance, we can control flooding through massive reforestation in inland mountainous areas, and through rainwater harvesting systems – building small wetlands or reservoirs on hillsides. This would slow the amount of water reaching the ramblas and barrancos, the gorges and channels that funnel rainwater through Spain’s towns and prevent them from flooding. At the same time, this would mean water can be captured by the soil, where it can then be gradually returned to the rivers and reservoirs.

Not only is this feasible, it is cost-effective, generates many jobs, and could save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

Antonio Ruiz de Elvira Serra, Catedrático de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Alcalá

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

—–

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

AP: “Climate change is making extreme downpours in Spain heavier and more likely, scientists say”

(The Conversation) – Hurricane Milton went from barely hurricane strength to a dangerous Category 5 storm in less than 24 hours as it headed across the Gulf of Mexico toward Florida.

As its wind speed increased, Milton became one of the most rapidly intensifying storms on record. And with 180 mph sustained winds on Oct. 7, 2024, and very low pressure, it also became one of the strongest storms of the year.

Less than two weeks after Hurricane Helene’s devastating impact, this kind of storm was the last thing Florida wanted to see. Hurricane Milton was expected to make landfall as a major hurricane late on Oct. 9 or early Oct. 10 and had already prompted widespread evacuations.

So, what exactly is rapid intensification, and what does global climate change have to do with it? We research hurricane behavior and teach meteorology. Here’s what you need to know.

What is rapid intensification?

Rapid intensification is defined by the National Weather Service as an increase in a tropical cyclone’s maximum sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots – about 35 mph within a 24-hour period. That increase can be enough to escalate a storm from Category 1 to Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

Milton’s wind speed went from 80 mph to 175 mph from 1 p.m. Sunday to 1 p.m. Monday, and its pressure dropped from 988 millibars to 911.

The National Hurricane Center had been warning that Milton was likely to become a major hurricane, but this kind of rapid intensification can catch people off guard, especially when it occurs close to landfall.

Hurricane Michael did billions of dollars in damage in 2018 when it rapidly intensified into a Category 5 storm just before hitting near Tyndall Air Force Base in the Florida Panhandle. In 2023, Hurricane Otis’ maximum wind speed increased by 100 mph in less than 24 hours before it hit Acapulco, Mexico. Hurricane Ian also rapidly intensified in 2022 before hitting just south of where Milton is projected to cross Florida.

What causes hurricanes to rapidly intensify?

Rapid intensification is difficult to forecast, but there are a few driving forces.

• Ocean heat: Warm sea surface temperatures, particularly when they extend into deeper layers of warm water, provide the energy necessary for hurricanes to intensify. The deeper the warm water, the more energy a storm can draw upon, enhancing its strength.

• Low wind shear: Strong vertical wind shear – a rapid change in wind speed or direction with height – can disrupt a storm’s organization, while low wind shear allows hurricanes to grow more rapidly. In Milton’s case, the atmospheric conditions were particularly conducive to rapid intensification.

• Moisture: Higher sea surface temperatures and lower salinity increase the amount of moisture available to storms, fueling rapid intensification. Warmer waters provide the heat needed for moisture to evaporate, while lower salinity helps trap that heat near the surface. This allows more sustained heat and moisture to transfer to the storm, driving faster and stronger intensification.

• Thunderstorm activity: Internal dynamics, such as bursts of intense thunderstorms within a cyclone’s rotation, can reorganize a cyclone’s circulation and lead to rapid increases in strength, even when the other conditions aren’t ideal.

Research has found that globally, a majority of hurricanes Category 3 and above tend to undergo rapid intensification within their lifetimes.

How does global warming influence hurricane strength?

If it seems as though you’ve been hearing about rapid intensification a lot more in recent years, that’s in part because it’s happening more often.

A 2023 study investigating connections between rapid intensification and climate change found an increase in the number of tropical cyclones experiencing rapid intensification over the past four decades. That includes a significant rise in the number of hurricanes that rapidly intensify multiple times during their development. Another analysis comparing trends from 1982 to 2017 with climate model simulations found that natural variability alone could not explain these increases in rapidly intensifying storms, indicating a likely role of human-induced climate change.

How future climate change will affect hurricanes is an active area of research. As global temperatures and oceans continue to warm, however, the frequency of major hurricanes is projected to increase. The extreme hurricanes of recent years, including Beryl in June 2024 and Helene, are already raising alarms about the intensifying impact of warming on tropical cyclone behavior.

Zachary Handlos, Atmospheric Science Educator, Georgia Institute of Technology and Ali Sarhadi, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – Hurricane Helene caused deadly and destructive flooding when it swept through the Southeast on Sept. 26-29, 2024. Across a broad swath of western North Carolina, where the worst flooding occurred, the amount of rainfall exceeded levels that would be expected on average only once every 1,000 years.

But this wasn’t the first 1,000-year rainstorm in North Carolina this year. In mid-September, an unnamed slow-moving storm produced more than a foot of rainfall closer to the Atlantic coast. This storm inundated areas that had already been drenched by Tropical Storm Debby in August.

As atmospheric scientists and state climatologists, we believe it’s important for the public to understand the risk that extreme events may occur. That’s especially true as climate change alters the conditions that create and feed storms. Here’s how scientists calculate storm probabilities, and why events like a 1,000-year storm can happen much more frequently in some places than that term suggests.

Forecasting the future based on the past

Estimates of rainfall return periods – how long it will be, on average, between storms of a given size – come from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the home of the National Weather Service. NOAA publishes these projections in a series of reports called Atlas 14. Architects and engineers use them to design buildings, dams, bridges and other facilities to withstand heavy rainfall.

The estimates use past rainfall data to calculate how frequently rainstorms of various sizes occur at given locations. In places where historical rainfall observations have been collected for decades, it’s possible to calculate the amount of rain that is exceeded, on average, one or two times per year with very high confidence.

Experts then use statistical methods to estimate how frequently larger rain amounts would occur. As the amounts get bigger, the calculations become less precise. But it’s still possible to make reasonable estimates of very rare rain events.

The results are average probabilities that a certain amount of rain will fall in a given location in any given year. If a storm that produces 6 inches (15 centimeters) of rain within 24 hours has a 1% chance of occurring in any year, then we would expect such a storm to happen once in 100 years, so its return period is said to be 100 years. An event with a 0.1% chance of happening in any given year could be expected to occur once in 1,000 years on average, so it is referred to as a 1,000-year event.

It’s not ‘one and done’

The problem with terms like 100-year event or 1,000-year event is that many people hear them and assume they mean another storm of that size shouldn’t occur for another 99 or 999 years. That’s a reasonable conclusion, but it’s incorrect. Each storm is an individual event, so just because one becomes unusually large doesn’t mean that another storm a year later can’t exceed the odds as well.

Imagine you’re rolling a pair of dice. The odds of throwing a pair of sixes is small – just 1 in 36, or slightly less than 3%. But if you roll the dice again, the odds don’t change – they are the same for that roll as the one before.

A more accurate way to communicate storm odds is to think about the annual exceedance probability – the chance that a rainstorm of a given size could occur in any single year. A 1,000-year storm has a 0.1% chance of occurring in any year, and the same probability of occurring again the next year, and the year after.

Since the U.S. is a big country, we should expect to see a bunch of 0.1% probability rainstorms every year. The chance of such a storm occurring at any specific location is extremely low, but the chance of one occurring somewhere becomes quite a bit higher.

Put another way, even if you are unlikely to experience a 1,000-year storm at your location, there likely will be 1,000-year storms somewhere in the country every year.

Different areas see different kinds of storms

In the real world, actual rainstorms aren’t randomly distributed; they are a result of atmospheric processes like thunderstorms and hurricanes, which are produced by local and regional climate patterns. So a map of actual 1,000-year rainstorms would show clusters reflecting hurricanes along the East Coast, atmospheric rivers along the West Coast, and thunderstorm complexes in the Great Plains, where thunderstorm systems form.

Storm types matter because they have different durations. Almost all rare 1-hour extreme rainfall events are associated with thunderstorms, while those that last 48 or 72 hours often are caused by hurricanes or their remnants.

North Carolina and South Carolina, which are frequently affected by hurricanes and tropical storms, have seen numerous extreme rainfall events in recent years. They include record-setting rainstorms in October 2015 in South Carolina; Hurricane Matthew in 2016; Hurricane Florence in 2018; the aforementioned nameless storm in September 2024; and now, Hurricane Helene.

In fact, since 2002, the three U.S. storms that have dropped 1,000-year magnitude rainfall on the largest areas have all hit the Carolinas: the October 2015 storm, Florence and Helene.

Loading the weather dice

Why have so many storms that, historically and statistically, should be exceedingly rare, struck the Carolinas in just a few years? There are two main reasons, which are related.

“Cyclone,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

First, estimating the probability of rare events requires increasingly large amounts of data. NOAA’s Atlas 14 was last updated for the Carolinas in 2006, and those calculations only used data through 2000.

As more storms occur and more data is collected, the estimates get more robust. Given that reliable rainfall measurements only extend back about 100 years, the true probability of this much rain in the Carolinas may have been underestimated up until now.

Second, these statistics assume the climate isn’t changing, but we know that it is. Especially in regions near the coasts, the frequency of heavy rainfall has increased as a result of human-caused climate change. Warmer air can hold more moisture, and warmer oceans provide that moisture as the fuel for heavy rainfall.

As a result, climate change is making rainstorms that had been extremely rare now somewhat more likely. While the Carolinas may have been especially unlucky in recent years, the dice are also becoming loaded toward heavier rain – a trend that poses major challenges for emergency preparedness and recovery.

NOAA is currently developing Atlas 15, which will update current estimates with more recent data and will incorporate the effects of climate change. The agency also plans to modernize its estimates of a related quantity known as probable maximum precipitation, which is an estimate of the worst-case rainfall that could occur in a location.

Engineers use these estimates to design large critical facilities, such as dams, that can withstand the flood that would occur with the worst-case scenario rainfall at their sites. North Carolina has developed its own version of Atlas 15, due to the pressing need to plan transportation infrastructure to handle more events like Florence and Helene.

These updates will provide information that can be used for better planning and decision-making. Even so, extreme rainfall will still be a major hazard, with significant impacts on many U.S. communities.

Russ Schumacher, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Colorado State Climatologist, Colorado State University and Kathie Dello, Director, North Carolina State Climate Office, North Carolina State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – Millions of Americans have been watching with growing alarm as their homeowners insurance premiums rise and their coverage shrinks. Nationwide, premiums rose 34% between 2017 and 2023, and they continued to rise in 2024 across much of the country.

To add insult to injury, those rates go even higher if you make a claim – as much as 25% if you claim a total loss of your home.

Why is this happening?

There are a few reasons, but a common thread: Climate change is fueling more severe weather, and insurers are responding to rising damage claims. The losses are exacerbated by more frequent extreme weather disasters striking densely populated areas, rising construction costs and homeowners experiencing damage that was once more rare.

Parts of the U.S. have been seeing larger and more damaging hail, higher storm surges, massive and widespread wildfires, and heat waves that kink metal and buckle asphalt. In Houston, what used to be a 100-year disaster, such as Hurricane Harvey in 2017, is now a 1-in-23-years event, estimates by risk assessors at First Street Foundation suggest. In addition, more people are moving into coastal and wildland areas at risk from storms and wildfires.

Just a decade ago, few insurance companies had a comprehensive strategy for addressing climate risk as a core business issue. Today, insurance companies have no choice but to factor climate change into their policy models.

Rising damage costs, higher premiums

There’s a saying that to get someone to pay attention to climate change, put a price on it. Rising insurance costs are doing just that.

Increasing global temperatures lead to more extreme weather, and that means insurance companies have had to make higher payouts. In turn, they have been raising their prices and changing their coverage in order to remain solvent. That raises the costs for homeowners and for everyone else.

The importance of insurance to the economy cannot be understated. You generally cannot get a mortgage or even drive a car, build an office building or enter into contracts without insurance to protect against the inherent risks. Because insurance is so tightly woven into economies, state agencies review insurance companies’ proposals to increase premiums or reduce coverage.

The insurance companies are not making political statements with the increases. They are looking at the numbers, calculating risk and pricing it accordingly. And the numbers are concerning.

The arithmetic of climate risk

Insurance companies use data from past disasters and complex models to calculate expected future payouts. Then they price their policies to cover those expected costs. In doing so, they have to balance three concerns: keeping rates low enough to remain competitive, setting rates high enough to cover payouts and not running afoul of insurance regulators.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

But climate change is disrupting those risk models. As global temperatures rise, driven by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use and other human activities, past is no longer prologue: What happened over the past 10 to 20 years is less predictive of what will happen in the next 10 to 20 years.

The number of billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. each year offers a clear example. The average rose from 3.3 per year in the 1980s to 18.3 per year in the 10-year period ending in 2024, with all years adjusted for inflation.

With that more than fivefold increase in billion-dollar disasters came rising insurance costs in the Southeast because of hurricanes and extreme rainfall, in the West because of wildfires, and in the Midwest because of wind, hail and flood damage.

Hurricanes tend to be the most damaging single events. They caused more than US$692 billion in property damage in the U.S. between 2014 and 2023. But severe hail and windstorms, including tornadoes, are also costly; together, those on the billion-dollar disaster list did more than $246 billion in property damage over the same period.

As insurance companies adjust to the uncertainty, they may run a loss in one segment, such as homeowners insurance, but recoup their losses in other segments, such as auto or commercial insurance. But that cannot be sustained over the long term, and companies can be caught by unexpected events. California’s unprecedented wildfires in 2017 and 2018 wiped out nearly 25 years’ worth of profits for insurance companies in that state.

To balance their risk, insurance companies often turn to reinsurance companies; in effect, insurance companies that insure insurance companies. But reinsurers have also been raising their prices to cover their costs. Property reinsurance alone increased by 35% in 2023. Insurers are passing those costs to their policyholders.

What this means for your homeowners policy

Not only are homeowners insurance premiums going up, coverage is shrinking. In some cases, insurers are reducing or dropping coverage for items such as metal trim, doors and roof repair, increasing deductibles for risks such as hail and fire damage, or refusing to pay full replacement costs for things such as older roofs.

Some insurances companies are simply withdrawing from markets altogether, canceling existing policies or refusing to write new ones when risks become too uncertain or regulators do not approve their rate increases to cover costs. In recent years, State Farm and Allstate pulled back from California’s homeowner market, and Farmers, Progressive and AAA pulled back from the Florida market, which is seeing some of the highest insurance rates in the country.

State-run “insurers of last resort,” which can provide coverage for people who can’t get coverage from private companies, are struggling too. Taxpayers in states such as California and Florida have been forced to bail out their state insurers. And the National Flood Insurance Program has raised its premiums, leading 10 states to sue to stop them.

About 7.4% of U.S. homeowners have given up on insurance altogether, leaving an estimated $1.6 trillion in property value at risk, including in high-risk states such as Florida.

No, insurance costs aren’t done rising

According to NOAA data, 2023 was the hottest year on record “by far.” And 2024 could be even hotter. This general warming trend and the rise in extreme weather is expected to continue until greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are abated.

In the face of such worrying analyses, U.S. homeowners insurance will continue to get more expensive and cover less. And yet, Jacques de Vaucleroy, chairman of the board of reinsurance giant Swiss Re, believes U.S. insurance is still priced too low to fully cover the risk from climate change.

Climate change is a major factor in the rising cost of insurance. Join us for a special free webinar with experts Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan and Melanie Gall of Arizona State University to discuss the arithmetic behind these rising rates, what climate change has to do with it, and what may be coming in your future insurance bills.

Wednesday, October 9, 2024, 11:30 a.m. PT/2:30 p.m. ET.
Register for the webinar here.

Andrew J. Hoffman, Professor of Management & Organizations, Environment & Sustainability, and Sustainable Enterprise, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

( Foreign Policy in Focus ) – Azerbaijan is making the most of its hosting of the UN climate summit (COP29) in November this year. Its president, Ilham Aliyev, has been on a whirlwind tour of the world to court major nations for a climate finance pact that will feature Baku’s initiative on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which originally was a pledge to provide $100 billion annually for climate action in developing countries. He also enlisted the support of his neighbor, Russia.

On August 18-19, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a two-day state visit to Azerbaijan. Aliyev invited him to attend COP29. Putin hasn’t been fond of climate summits, but this one will be hard for him to skip. If he attends, he will, for the first time since the invasion of Ukraine, sit next to leaders of P5, G-7, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), G-20, and the 38-member OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. Except for G-7, Russia is a key member of all these groupings.

Putin will be tempted to support the NCQG, since it would give him an opportunity to name and shame those who have been historically the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG). But there is an irony involved here. The Russian economy is awash in resource extraction, especially the extraction of oil and natural gas. Russia is world’s fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, after China, the United States, and India. Should Russia call out rich nations for their historical contribution to GHG emissions, it will be the pot calling the kettle black.

Besides their shared past as former Soviet republics, Azerbaijan and Russia are fellow littoral states that share the long, transnational Caspian coastline. With a surface area of 143,000 square miles, the Caspian is the world’s largest inland body of water. It is “inland” because it doesn’t feed into any larger waterway, such as the ocean. Its year-round cumulative moisture makes coastal economies hum.

As one of the five littoral states—the others being Kazakhstan, Russia, Iran, and Turkmenistan—Azerbaijan is the most dependent upon the Caspian. One-fourth of Baku’s oil reserves are located offshore in the Caspian. Azerbaijan could live without this oil, but it cannot live without the food, water, and ecological treasures that the Caspian lavishes upon it. Sturgeon is the queen fish of the Caspian, which yields the world delicacy of caviar. Up to 90 percent of the world’s caviar is sourced from the Caspian. Baku, the capital city of Azerbaijan and host to COP29, is built on the shore of the Caspian. The lake is the city’s water tower and its food pantry.

But the Caspian is fast drying up. With climate-induced soaring temperatures, the lake is rapidly evaporating, leaving behind sprawling patches of dry land. On average, the Caspian has been receding by 20 centimeters per year. It is projected to drop by 18 meters by the end of the century, while the northern Caspian is already only 5-6 meters deep. It has now passed below the level at which it can support the marine ecosystem.

Aliyev showed Putin rocks that were peeking out of the lake’s fast developing shallows. The Azeri leader fears that this process will eventually turn the lake into an island, just as it did to the Aral Sea. The latter’s seabed is now land surface with miles upon miles of dirt trails. The Kazakh port city of Aqtau has already dried up, leaving the vibrant urban center and its economy in ruin.

Photo by MohammadReza Jelveh on Unsplash

At slightly over a million square miles, Kazakhstan is comparable in size to Western Europe and thus can absorb the loss of a city. Azerbaijan is, however, far more compact with a land area of just 33,436 square miles. Its surface and subsurface territorial waters in the Caspian are twice as large as its landmass. Losing so much of the country to climate change would be unthinkable for any Azeri.

Putin has promised Aliyev to save the lake. Despite his promise, there is little Putin can do. Putin’s Russia is an upstream country on the Caspian. The other four coastal nations, including Azerbaijan, want Moscow to cease impounding and diverting tributaries to the Caspian. One such tributary is the Volga River, which is the longest and the largest (in volume) body of water on the European continent. The Volga’s headwaters are located northwest of Moscow. Caspian nations argue that the Volga makes up 80 percent of the inflow to the lake. The remainder (20 per cent) comes from two downstream river systems: the Kurra and the Aras. The Volga’s uninterrupted flow is, therefore, critical to the life of the Caspian.

But Russia has built 40 dams and diversions on the Volga, and 18 more are in various stages of development, all of which have slashed flow to the Caspian to a trickle. Dams and diversions do diminish inflows, but climate change too is having an impact. If the Caspian itself is evaporating from hotter and drier conditions, the Volga is no exception to this phenomenon either. Reduced precipitation is contributing to the problem. A case in point is the transboundary Helmand River that drains both Afghanistan and Iran. Lack of rainfall has reduced the Helmand’s flow so much that it seldom makes it to Iran, inflaming tensions between Kabul and Tehran.

Ironically, all five Caspian economies – Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan — are heavily dependent on fossil fuel production, which is at the heart of climate breakdown. Despite platitudes about reaching net zero, the global capitalist economy is also hooked on fossil fuels.  As a result, carbon emissions are on the rise, and atmospheric temperatures are smashing records. Since the Paris Climate Pact in 2015, the world has gone backward on climate change.

Unless hydrocarbon resources are kept in the ground, there is little hope of saving world monuments such as the Caspian. COP 29 is a great occasion to showcase what the Caspian means to the region and the rest of the world. Azerbaijan’s initiative on climate finance couldn’t be more urgent to help preserve the Caspian and similar natural wonders. The United States will better serve the cause of climate stability by taking the lead in supporting the NCQG. President Joe Biden could further burnish his climate legacy by giving his vision at COP 29 of the “Great Transition” to a global green economy. Biden and others need to go well beyond the business as usual of climate adaptation to strike at the root of the problem: fossil capitalism.

The Conversation – Record breaking fossil fuel production, all time high greenhouse gas emissions and extreme temperatures. Like the proverbial frog in the heating pan of water, we refuse to respond to the climate and ecological crisis with any sense of urgency. Under such circumstances, claims from some that global warming can still be limited to no more than 1.5°C take on a surreal quality.

For example, at the start of 2023’s international climate negotiations in Dubai, conference president, Sultan Al Jaber, boldly stated that 1.5°C was his goal and that his presidency would be guided by a “deep sense of urgency” to limit global temperatures to 1.5°C. He made such lofty promises while planning a massive increase in oil and gas production as CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

We should not be surprised to see such behaviour from the head of a fossil fuel company. But Al Jaber is not an outlier. Scratch at the surface of almost any net zero pledge or policy that claims to be aligned with the 1.5°C goal of the landmark 2015 Paris agreement and you will reveal the same sort of reasoning: we can avoid dangerous climate change without actually doing what this demands – which is to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transport, energy (70% of total) and food systems (30% of total), while ramping up energy efficiency.

A particularly instructive example is Amazon. In 2019 the company established a 2040 net zero target which was then verified by the UN Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) which has been leading the charge in getting companies to establish climate targets compatible with the Paris agreement. But over the next four years Amazon’s emissions went up by 40%. Given this dismal performance, the SBTi was forced to act and removed Amazon and over 200 companies from its Corporate Net Zero Standard.

This is also not surprising given that net zero and even the Paris agreement have been built around the perceived need to keep burning fossil fuels, at least in the short term. Not do so would threaten economic growth, given that fossil fuels still supply over 80% of total global energy. The trillions of dollars of fossil fuel assets at risk with rapid decarbonisation have also served as powerful brakes on climate action.

Overshoot

The way to understand this doublethink: that we can avoid dangerous climate change while continuing to burn fossil fuels – is that it relies on the concept of overshoot. The promise is that we can overshoot past any amount of warming, with the deployment of planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal dragging temperatures back down by the end of the century.

This not only cripples any attempt to limit warming to 1.5°C, but risks catastrophic levels of climate change as it locks us in to energy and material-intensive solutions which for the most part exist only on paper.

To argue that we can safely overshoot 1.5°C, or any amount of warming, is saying the quiet bit out loud: we simply don’t care about the increasing amount of suffering and deaths that will be caused while the recovery is worked on.

A key element of overshoot is carbon dioxide removal. This is essentially a time machine – we are told we can turn back the clock of decades of delay by sucking carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere. We don’t need rapid decarbonisation now, because in the future we will be able to take back those carbon emissions. If or when that doesn’t work, we are led to believe that even more outlandish geoengineering approaches such as spraying sulphurous compounds into the high atmosphere in an attempt to block out sunlight – which amounts to planetary refrigeration – will save us.

The 2015 Paris agreement was an astonishing accomplishment. The establishment of 1.5°C as being the internationally agreed ceiling for warming was a success for those people and nations most exposed to climate change hazards. We know that every fraction of a degree matters. But at the time, believing warming could really be limited to well below 2°C required a leap of faith when it came to nations and companies putting their shoulder to the wheel of decarbonisation. What has happened instead is that the net zero approach of Paris is becoming detached from reality as it is increasingly relying on science fiction levels of speculative technology.

There is arguably an even bigger problem with the Paris agreement. By framing climate change in terms of temperature, it focuses on the symptoms, not the cause. 1.5°C or any amount of warming is the result of humans changing the energy balance of the climate by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This traps more heat. Changes in the global average temperature is the established way of measuring this increase in heat, but no one experiences this average.

Climate change is dangerous because of weather that affects particular places at particular times. Simply put, this extra heat is making weather more unstable. Unfortunately, having temperature targets makes solar geoengineering seem like a sensible approach because it may lower temperatures. But it does this by not reducing, but increasing our interference in the climate system. Trying to block out the sun in response to increasing carbon emissions is like turning on the air conditioning in response to a house fire.

In 2021 we argued that net zero was a dangerous trap. Three years on and we can see the jaws of this trap beginning to close, with climate policy being increasingly framed in terms of overshoot. The resulting impacts on food and water security, poverty, human health, the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems will produce intolerable suffering.

The situation demands honesty, and a change of course. If this does not materialise then things are likely to deteriorate, potentially rapidly and in ways that may be impossible to control.

Au revoir Paris

The time has come to accept that climate policy has failed, and that the 2015 landmark Paris agreement is dead. We let it die by pretending that we could both continue to burn fossil fuels and avoid dangerous climate change at the same time. Rather than demand the immediate phase out of fossil fuels, the Paris agreement proposed 22nd-century temperature targets which could be met by balancing the sources and sinks of carbon. Within that ambiguity net zero flourished. And yet apart from the COVID economic shock in 2020, emissions have increased every year since 2015, reaching an all time high in 2023.

Despite there being abundant evidence that climate action makes good economic sense (the cost of inaction vastly exceeds the cost of action), no country strengthened their pledges at the last three COPs (the annual UN international meetings) even though it was clear that the world was on course to sail past 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. The Paris agreement should be producing a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but current policies mean that they are on track to be higher than they are today.

We do not deny that significant progress has been made with renewable technologies. Rates of deployment of wind and solar have increased each year for the past 22 years and carbon emissions are going down in some of the richest nations, including the UK and the US. But this is not happening fast enough. A central element of the Paris agreement is that richer nations need to lead decarbonisation efforts to give lower income nations more time to transition away from fossil fuels. Despite some claims to the contrary, the global energy transition is not in full swing. In fact, it hasn’t actually begun because the transition demands a reduction in fossil fuel use. Instead it continues to increase year-on-year.

And so policymakers are turning to overshoot in an attempt to claim that they have a plan to avoid dangerous climate change. A central plank of this approach is that the climate system in the future will continue to function as it does today. This is a reckless assumption.

2023’s warning signs

At the start of 2023, Berkeley Earth, NASA, the UK Met Office, and Carbon Brief predicted that 2023 would be slightly warmer than the previous year but unlikely to set any records. Twelve months later and all four organisations concluded that 2023 was by some distance the warmest year ever recorded. In fact, between February 2023 and February 2024 the global average temperature warming exceeded the Paris target of 1.5°C.

The extreme weather events of 2023 give us a glimpse of the suffering that further global warming will produce. A 2024 report from the World Economic Forum concluded that by 2050 climate change may have caused over 14 million deaths and US$12.5 trillion in loss and damages.

Currently we cannot fully explain why global temperatures have been so high for the past 18 months. Changes in dust, soot and other aerosols are important, and there are natural processes such as El Niño that will be having an effect.

But it appears that there is still something missing in our current understanding of how the climate is responding to human impacts. This includes changes in the Earth’s vital natural carbon cycle.

Around half of all the carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere over the whole of human history has gone into “carbon sinks” on land and the oceans. We get this carbon removal “for free”, and without it, warming would be much higher. Carbon dioxide from the air dissolves in the oceans (making them more acidic which threatens marine ecosystems). At the same time, increasing carbon dioxide promotes the growth of plants and trees which locks up carbon in their leaves, roots, trunks.

All climate policies and scenarios assume that these natural carbon sinks will continue to remove tens of billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year. There is evidence that land-based carbon sinks, such as forests, removed significantly less carbon in 2023. If natural sinks begin to fail – something they may well do in a warmer world – then the task of lowering global temperatures becomes even harder. The only credible way of limiting warming to any amount, is to stop putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the first place.

Science fiction solutions

It’s clear that the commitments countries have made to date as part of the Paris agreement will not keep humanity safe while carbon emissions and temperatures continue to break records. Indeed, proposing to spend trillions of dollars over this century to suck carbon dioxide out of the air, or the myriad other ways to hack the climate is an acknowledgement that the world’s largest polluters are not going to curb the burning of fossil fuels.

Direct Air Capture (DAC), Bio Energy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), enhanced ocean alkalinity, biochar, sulphate aerosol injection, cirrus cloud thinning – the entire wacky races of carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering only makes sense in a world of failed climate policy.

Over the following years we are going to see climate impacts increase. Lethal heatwaves are going to become more common. Storms and floods are going to become increasingly destructive. More people are going to be displaced from their homes. National and regional harvests will fail. Vast sums of money will need to be spent on efforts to adapt to climate change, and perhaps even more compensating those who are most affected. We are expected to believe that while all this and more unfolds, new technologies that will directly modify the Earth’s atmosphere and energy balance will be successfully deployed.

What’s more, some of these technologies may need to operate for three hundred years in order for the consequences of overshoot to be avoided. Rather than quickly slow down carbon polluting activities and increasing the chances that the Earth system will recover, we are instead going all in on net zero and overshoot in an increasingly desperate hope that untested science fiction solutions will save us from climate breakdown.

We can see the cliff edge rapidly approaching. Rather than slam on the brakes, some people are instead pushing their foot down harder on the accelerator. Their justification for this insanity is that we need to go faster in order to be able to make the jump and land safely on the other side.

We believe that many who advocate for carbon dioxide removal and geoengineering do so in good faith. But they include proposals to refreeze the Arctic by pumping up sea water onto ice sheets to form new layers of ice and snow. These are interesting ideas to research, but there is very little evidence this will have any effect on the Arctic let alone global climate. These are the sorts of knots that people tie themselves up in when they acknowledge the failure of climate policy, but refuse to challenge the fundamental forces behind such failure. They are unwittingly slowing down the only effective action of rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

That’s because proposals to remove carbon dioxide from the air or geoengineer the climate promise a recovery from overshoot, a recovery that will be delivered by innovation, driven by growth. That this growth is powered by the same fossil fuels that are causing the problem in the first place doesn’t feature in their analysis.

The bottom line here is that the climate system is utterly indifferent to our pledges and promises. It doesn’t care about economic growth. And if we carry on burning fossil fuels then it will not stop changing until the energy balance is restored. By which time millions of people could be dead, with many more facing intolerable suffering.

Major climate tipping points

Even if we assume that carbon removal and even geoengineering technologies can be deployed in time, there is a very large problem with the plan to overshoot 1.5°C and then lower temperatures later: tipping points.

The science of tipping points is rapidly advancing. Late last year one of us (James Dyke) along with over 200 academics from around the world was involved in the production of the Global Tipping Points Report. This was a review of the latest science about where tipping points in the climate system may be, as well as exploring how social systems can undertake rapid change (in the direction that we want) thereby producing positive tipping points. Within the report’s 350 pages is abundant evidence that the overshoot approach is an extraordinarily dangerous gamble with the future of humanity. Some tipping points have the potential to cause global havoc.

The melt of permafrost could release billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and supercharge human-caused climate change. Fortunately, this seems unlikely under the current warming. Unfortunately, the chance that ocean currents in the North Atlantic could collapse may be much higher than previously thought. If that were to materialise, weather systems across the world, but in particular in Europe and North America, would be thrown into chaos. Beyond 1.5°C, warm water coral reefs are heading towards annihilation. The latest science concludes that by 2°C global reefs would be reduced by 99%. The devastating bleaching event unfolding across the Great Barrier Reef follows multiple mass mortality events. To say we are witnessing one of the world’s greatest biological wonders die is insufficient. We are knowingly killing it.

We may have even already passed some major climate tipping points. The Earth has two great ice sheets, Antarctica, and Greenland. Both are disappearing as a consequence of climate change. Between 2016 and 2020, the Greenland ice sheet lost on average 372 billion tons of ice a year. The current best assessment of when a tipping point could be reached for the Greenland ice sheet is around 1.5°C.

This does not mean that the Greenland ice sheet will suddenly collapse if warming exceeds that level. There is so much ice (some 2,800 trillion tons) that it would take centuries for all of it to melt over which time sea levels would rise seven metres. If global temperatures could be brought back down after a tipping point, then maybe the ice sheet could be stabilised. We just cannot say with any certainty that such a recovery would be possible. While we struggle with the science, 30 million tons of ice is melting across Greenland every hour on average.

The take home message from research on these and other tipping points is that further warming accelerates us towards catastrophe. Important science, but is anyone listening?

It’s five minutes to midnight…again

We know we must urgently act on climate change because we are repeatedly told that time is running out. In 2015, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the UN special adviser and director of The Earth Institute, declared:

The time has finally arrived – we’ve been talking about these six months for many years but we’re now here. This is certainly our generation’s best chance to get on track.

In 2019 (then) Prince Charles gave a speech in which he said: “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.”

“We have six months to save the planet,” exhorted International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol – one year later in 2020. In April 2024, Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said the next two years are “essential in saving our planet”.

Either the climate crisis has a very fortunate feature that allows the countdown to catastrophe to be continually reset, or we are deluding ourselves with endless declarations that time has not quite run out. If you can repeatedly hit snooze on your alarm clock and roll over back to sleep, then your alarm clock is not working.

Or there is another possibility. Stressing that we have very little time to act is intended to focus attention on climate negotiations. It’s part of a wider attempt to not just wake people up to the impending crisis, but generate effective action. This is sometimes used to explain how the 1.5°C threshold of warming came to be agreed. Rather than a specific target, it should be understood as a stretch goal. We may very well fail, but in reaching for it we move much faster than we would have done with a higher target, such as 2°C. For example, consider this statement made in 2018:

Stretching the goal to 1.5 degrees celsius isn’t simply about speeding up. Rather, something else must happen and society needs to find another lever to pull on a global scale.

What could this lever be? New thinking about economics that goes beyond GDP? Serious consideration of how rich industrialised nations could financially and materially help poorer nations to leapfrog fossil fuel infrastructure? Participatory democracy approaches that could help birth the radical new politics needed for the restructuring of our fossil fuel powered societies? None of these.

The lever in question is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) because the above quote comes from an article written by Shell in 2018. In this advertorial Shell argues that we will need fossil fuels for many decades to come. CCS allows the promise that we can continue to burn fossil fuels and avoid carbon dioxide pollution by trapping the gas before it leaves the chimney. Back in 2018, Shell was promoting its carbon removal and offsets heavy Sky Scenario, an approach described as “a dangerous fantasy” by leading climate change academics as it assumed massive carbon emissions could be offset by tree planting.

Since then Shell has further funded carbon removal research within UK universities presumably in efforts to burnish its arguments that it must be able to continue to extract vast amounts of oil and gas.

Shell is far from alone in waving carbon capture magic wands. Exxon is making great claims for CCS as a way to produce net zero hydrogen from fossil gas – claims that have been subject to pointed criticism from academics with recent reporting exposing industry wide greenwashing around CCS.

But the rot goes much deeper. All climate policy scenarios that propose to limit warming to near 1.5°C rely on the largely unproven technologies of CCS and BECCS. BECCS sounds like a good idea in theory. Rather than burn coal in a power station, burn biomass such as wood chips. This would initially be a carbon neutral way of generating electricity if you grew as many trees as you cut down and burnt. If you then add scrubbers to the power station chimneys to capture the carbon dioxide, and then bury that carbon deep underground, then you would be able to generate power at the same time as reducing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, there is now clear evidence that in practice, large-scale BECCS would have very adverse effects on biodiversity, and food and water security given the large amounts of land that would be given over to fast growing monoculture tree plantations. The burning of biomass may even be increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Drax, the UK’s largest biomass power station now produces four times as much carbon dioxide as the UK’s largest coal-fired power station.

Five minutes to midnight messages may be motivated to try to galvanise action, to stress the urgency of the situation and that we still (just) have time. But time for what? Climate policy only ever offers gradual change, certainly nothing that would threaten economic growth, or the redistribution of wealth and resources.

Despite the mounting evidence that globalised, industrialised capitalism is propelling humanity towards disaster, five minutes to midnight does not allow time and space to seriously consider alternatives. Instead, the solutions on offer are techno fixes that prop up the status quo and insists that fossil fuel companies such as Shell must be part of the solution.

That is not to say there are no good faith arguments for 1.5°C. But being well motivated does not alter reality. And the reality is that warming will soon pass 1.5°C, and that the Paris agreement has failed. In the light of that, repeatedly asking people to not give up hope, that we can avoid a now unavoidable outcome risks becoming counterproductive. Because if you insist on the impossible (burning fossil fuels and avoiding dangerous climate change), then you must invoke miracles. And there is an entire fossil fuel industry quite desperate to sell such miracles in the form of CCS.

Four suggestions

Humanity has enough problems right now, what we need are solutions. This is the response we sometimes get when we argue that there are fundamental problems with the net zero concept and the Paris agreement. It can be summed up with the simple question: so what’s your suggestion? Below we offer four.

1. Leave fossil fuels in the ground

The unavoidable reality is that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels. The only way we can be sure of that is by leaving them in the ground. We have to stop exploring for new fossil fuel reserves and the exploitation of existing ones. That could be done by stopping fossil fuel financing.

At the same time we must transform the food system, especially the livestock sector, given that it is responsible for nearly two thirds of agricultural emissions. Start there and then work out how best the goods and services of economies can be distributed. Let’s have arguments about that based on reality not wishful thinking.

2. Ditch net zero crystal ball gazing targets

The entire framing of mid and end-century net zero targets should be binned. We are already in the danger zone. The situation demands immediate action, not promises of balancing carbon budgets decades into the future. The SBTi should focus on near-term emissions reductions. By 2030, global emissions need to be half of what they are today for any chance of limiting warming to no more than 2°C.

It is the responsibility of those who hold most power – politicians and business leaders – to act now. To that end we must demand twin targets – all net zero plans should include a separate target for actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We must stop hiding inaction behind promises of future removals. It’s our children and future generations that will need to pay back the overshoot debt.

3. Base policy on credible science and engineering

All climate policies must be based on what can be done in the real world now, or in the very near future. If it is established that a credible amount of carbon can be removed by a proposed approach – which includes capture and its safe permanent storage – then and only then can this be included in net zero plans. The same applies to solar geoengineering.

Speculative technologies must be removed from all policies, pledges and scenarios until we are sure of how they will work, how they will be monitored, reported and validated, and what they will do to not just the climate but the Earth system as a whole. This would probably require a very large increase in research. As academics we like doing research. But academics need to be wary that concluding “needs more research” is not interpreted as “with a bit more funding this could work”.

4. Get real

Finally, around the world there are thousands of groups, projects, initiatives, and collectives that are working towards climate justice. But while there is a Climate Majority Project, and a Climate Reality Project, there is no Climate Honesty Project (although People Get Real does come close). In 2018 Extinction Rebellion was formed and demanded that governments tell the truth about the climate crisis and act accordingly. We can now see that when politicians were making their net zero promises they were also crossing their fingers behind their backs.

We need to acknowledge that net zero and now overshoot are becoming used to argue that nothing fundamental needs to change in our energy intensive societies. We must be honest about our current situation, and where we are heading. Difficult truths need to be told. This includes highlighting the vast inequalities of wealth, carbon emissions, and vulnerability to climate change.

The time for action is now

We rightly blame politicians for failing to act. But in some respects we get the politicians we deserve. Most people, even those that care about climate change, continue to demand cheap energy and food, and a constant supply of consumer products. Reducing demand by just making things more expensive risks plunging people into food and energy poverty and so policies to reduce emissions from consumption need to go beyond market-based approaches. The cost of living crisis is not separate from the climate and ecological crisis. They demand that we radically rethink how our economies and societies function, and whose interests they serve.

To return to the boiling frog predicament at the start, it’s high time for us to jump out of the pot. You have to wonder why we did not start decades ago. It’s here that the analogy offers valuable insights into net zero and the Paris agreement. Because the boiling frog story as typically told misses out a crucial fact. Regular frogs are not stupid. While they will happily sit in slowly warming water, they will attempt to escape once it becomes uncomfortable. The parable as told today is based on experiments at the end of the 19th century that involved frogs that had been “pithed” – a metal rod had been inserted into their skulls that destroyed their higher brain functioning. These radically lobotomised frogs would indeed float inert in water that was cooking them alive.

Promises of net zero and recovery from overshoot are keeping us from struggling to safety. They assure us nothing too drastic needs to happen just yet. Be patient, relax. Meanwhile the planet burns and we see any sort of sustainable future go up in smoke.

Owning up to the failures of climate change policy doesn’t mean giving up. It means accepting the consequences of getting things wrong, and not making the same mistakes. We must plan routes to safe and just futures from where we are, rather where we would wish to be. The time has come to leap.

For you: more from our Insights series:

• We found over 300 million young people had experienced online sexual abuse and exploitation over the course of our meta-study
  

• The discovery of insulin: a story of monstrous egos and toxic rivalries
  

• A century ago, the women of Wales made an audacious appeal for world peace – this is their story
  

• How to solve our mental health crisis
  

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

James Dyke, Associate Professor in Earth System Science, University of Exeter; Robert Watson, Emeritus Professor in Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, and Wolfgang Knorr, Senior Research Scientist, Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Feature image: Pixabay.

(The Conversation) – Extreme heat is a silent killer.

From time to time, we hear about shocking cases of football players and other athletes who die suddenly while exerting themselves on hot days. Those deaths are certainly tragic, but statistically they are very rare.

Most deaths from extreme heat are in older people, who frequently die alone inside their homes. They often die slowly, as the heat creeps up to and sometimes past body temperature, especially when heat domes park themselves over cities and keep the temperature high all day and all night. When such deaths happen, they rarely make the news.

Of all the climate change disasters our world is already experiencing, heat is the top killer, as the World Meteorological Organization reported. The planet was more than 1.5 C above the pre-industrial baseline for 12 consecutive months from July 2023 to June 2024. In July this year, we saw the hottest three days ever on record, prompting a special statement from United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Image by 🌸♡💙♡🌸 Julita 🌸♡💙♡🌸 from Pixabay

Health risks and heat

Our bodies are made to dump excess heat when we are too warm, but that process goes into reverse when the air is warmer than our core temperature. Our other main defence, sweating, doesn’t help when humidity saturates the air, making it impossible for our own moisture to evaporate.

For the frail and elderly, who are more likely to be labouring with heart troubles, COPD or other challenges, simply sitting still in a heat wave requires an effort equivalent to walking on a treadmill. The effort is not great, but it is steady and relentless. It exhausts the body, sometimes to the point of no return.

Tracking heat-related deaths is challenging, and it’s changing as authorities become more aware of heat as a contributing or underlying factor to deaths by other causes. A paper published by the American Journal of Public Health points out that the 1995 heat wave in Chicago likely contributed to hundreds more deaths than had first been attributed to heat itself.

Who is at risk?

Many people lack air conditioning or a way to get to a place that has it, such as a library, recreation centre or shopping mall. As a result, too many people in cities are forced to endure long waves of heat — waves that are occurring more frequently, lasting longer, and reaching higher temperatures — in a trend that appears set to continue getting worse.

Air conditioning, once a luxury that drew people to summertime movie theatres on hot nights, has become a necessity. Increasingly, it is also a legal requirement, as cities pass bylaws requiring landlords not to allow the temperature in their tenants’ quarters to rise above a certain level. Toronto has such a bylaw for rental units that have air conditioning available, capping indoor temps at 26 C between June 2 and Sept. 14.

“Global Heating 2200,” by Juan Cole, Digital, Dream / Dreamworld v. 3, 2024.

Such laws recognize the vulnerability of tenants who lack control over the temperature in their rental units, making heat death an especially urban tragedy, as confirmed in a recent Statistics Canada study between 2000 and 2020. Deaths from extreme heat were more likely in cities with a higher percentage of renter households.

During a single week-long heat wave in June 2021 — the year after the period captured in the Statistics Canada study — B.C.’s chief coroner found that 570 people died from heat-related causes — 79 per cent of them were seniors.

Taking action at the community level

From this Global North perspective, the community members who are most likely to die from extreme heat included:

• Those over 65
• Those with more than one chronic condition (including hypertension, mental health, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease)
• Socially disadvantaged populations in our communities
• Those with mobility issues
• Those experiencing social isolation (living alone)
• Tenants with lack of air conditioning
• Those living in an urban heat island

This problem is not going away.

Some of the actions we can take to protect our most vulnerable community members include:

• Increase awareness that excessive heat is not merely uncomfortable, but dangerous.
• Make sure people are warned about impending heat waves.
• Advocate for everyone to have access to air conditioning.
• Check on and support people who live alone, especially those with no air conditioning.
• Invite people over if you have air conditioning, or help them get to community cooling stations.
• Help vulnerable people who do not have air conditioning to improvise, by freezing wet cloths, for example, to take out and hang around their necks. Doing this, especially with a fan blowing, can be surprisingly effective.
• Learn and share the warning signs of heat-related illness.
• Make sure they drink plenty of water and other replenishing fluids.

While we must do our best to limit climate change to keep our planet from getting ever hotter, we must also make every effort to protect the vulnerable from the impacts of the heat that is already here.

Myles David Sergeant, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.