Tag: COP26

Disabled people and climate change

Posted on by janet.crompton

A couple of weeks ago, I was approached by a journalist working for BBC Ouch, the disability branch of BBC News.  They had my name on file because of a piece I proposed to write for them last year, concerning how it is possible to be a climate scientist/activist and, at the same time, to be severely physically disabled – not something most people put together.  Given that, possibly uniquely, I am very much both of these things, I thought this would be a fairly novel and (I hoped) positive and uplifting piece. Unfortunately, they disagreed, and it never got published.  However, they clearly kept my name on file, and approached me several weeks ago asking me to answer some questions, all revolving around the impact of anthropogenic climate change on disabled people.  With some hesitancy, which I will explain below, I answered these questions, and the story came out last week; it was entitled “Climate change: Why are disabled people so affected by the climate crisis?”.

Before there is any misunderstanding, I have absolutely no problem with this piece; they did not misquote me, or misinterpret what I wrote. However, unfortunately they completely missed (or possibly deliberately ignored) the main thrust of what I wrote and, as I suspected, my main argument clearly didn’t go down well.  This is because of the main agenda of the piece which, as is clear from even the title, is very much along the lines of “Whatever is going on in the world, it is worse for disabled people”.  This is probably the antithesis of my own personal agenda, and therefore what I wrote simply did not fit.  However, in response, it was suggested I write a blog post here, not to criticise the BBC article but simply to make my own argument, in my own words.

As I said, I approached the questions with more than a little hesitancy, because I am very much not a disabled activist and have never really let my physical issues be a big deal.  Let there be no misunderstanding – I care very much about the issues of disabled people, but the subject does not dominate my existence and I strongly object to the (surprisingly common) attitude that it somehow should.  How racist would it be to show raised eyebrows when learning that a person of colour was not attending a Black Lives Matter protest, implying somehow that they should?  But I have received the equivalent reaction many times.  With that in mind, I was hesitant to answer the journalist’s questions, all the more so because it became immediately obvious that the agenda was the one described above i.e. it was focusing purely on how badly off all disabled people are, and that anthropogenic climate change is just another example of this. Of course, it is very true that many disabled people are indeed suffering greatly, for a number of reasons; but that is not true for everybody, and in my opinion is not a generalisation that should be made.

Moreover, as I explained to the journalist, what I wrote for them was not based on any in-depth scientific evidence or research.  What I wrote, and indeed what I now write below, was and is therefore only be treated as personal opinion and some conjecture on my behalf. Likewise, I cannot possibly speak for all disabled people, because the needs and challenges of someone who is visually impaired are completely different to those of someone who is hearing impaired, or in a wheelchair.  Moreover, as a caveat, most of my comments below relate to those people with a physical disability, as I have little experience with people with a learning or emotional disability.  Clearly, if somebody does not have the capacity to do everyday tasks, no-one would say they should be doing more to tackle anthropogenic climate change. This is why, in general, I do not like the word ‘disability’, because it is incredibly broad and covers an enormous range of issues.  Unfortunately, being disabled does not give me a magic clairvoyance to understand other disabled people!  I can, of course, sympathise and empathise, and I can hypothesise over the possible challenges, but with only as much authority as any other member of the public. Sadly, I don’t have any special insight.

Therefore, although I answered the questions to the best of my ability, the main thrust of my argument was different to what they clearly wanted. In short, I argued that firstly everybody (not just disabled people) is going to be impacted by anthropogenic climate change, and secondly that the  economically vulnerable will be disproportionately hardest hit.  Given that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people are often amongst the most economically vulnerable, this is why they will be amongst the hardest-hit.  So my argument is that disabled people will not necessarily be hardest-hit because of their disability (although there are some examples, discussed below), but rather because of their economic status; which is exactly the same for many other people, disabled or not, in the same economically vulnerable group. 

To elaborate, my argument is that everybody is going to be hard hit by anthropogenic climate change, in many different ways, but that probably the most important thing concerning how hard an individual feels the impacts of climate change is their financial situation.  This is the case at both the international level (e.g. developing countries will be harder hit than developed ones, simply because the latter can afford to adapt to the impacts), and the individual level.  In other words, those individuals that are financially stable and secure will be much better placed to adapt to the impacts of anthropogenic climate change, and will therefore be relatively less hard-hit. Unfortunately, it is often the case that disabled people are not in this financially secure position.  This may be because of a number of reasons, such as either being unable to work because of their disability or being unable to find a job because of rampant (but well-disguised) discrimination. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), during the year October-December 2020, 53.6% of the 8.4 million disabled people of working age in the UK were in employment, compared to 81.7% of those who are not disabled1.  Likewise, the unemployment rate for disabled people was 8.4% during that period, compared to 4.6% for non-disabled people1.  So more or less twice as high.  As a result, during the same period 42.9% of disabled people were considered to be economically inactive, compared to only 14.9% of non-disabled people1. This may be because of a lack of education; again according to the ONS, the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people with no qualifications is 41%, but this decreases as the level of education increases (it is only 15% for those with a degree or equivalent)1.  So I would argue that it is a multifactorial process; with possibly a lack of education, resulting in a lack of employment, resulting in a lack of financial security, being the main reason why disabled people will be amongst the hardest-hit. 

After the question “Why are disabled people hardest-hit?”, I was then asked how and in what ways, and what might happen in the future.  To quote some recent research, disabled people will be hit in the same way as anybody else, but simply harder2. This I don’t dispute.  The example given in that particular piece of research is that of a hurricane, where a disabled person might need more social and medical support that someone without disabilities2. We know that anthropogenic climate change has already increased the intensity of observed precipitation, winds and sea level changes associated with tropical cyclones3, and this is only likely to continue into the future.  Another example, perhaps more relevant to the UK, is severe flooding.  We have recently seen on the news, across Europe and in the UK, many images of houses and even entire streets being inundated due to extreme rainfall events causing flash flooding, and this is going to impact disabled people more than others in very physical ways; as a wheelchair user, I for example would not be able to get into a rubber dinghy to be evacuated.  There are many other examples of where there may be other, very severe complications for disabled people.  For example, disabled people may well have lots of equipment in their homes which, if the home was to be flooded, might be badly damaged; this is not just everyday equipment such as TVs, but rather some of this equipment might be critically needed for survival, such as ventilators or oxygen concentrators. Another  example, which is discussed in detail in the BBC article and was also highlighted by the other expert they interviewed, is extreme weather
events, either heatwaves or cold snaps. Again, this is a generalisation, but many disabled people are more sensitive to extremely hot weather, which can often exacerbate existing conditions4.  The only way to avoid problems with our rising temperatures would be to install air conditioning units, which are expensive and again brings us back to the financial security argument.  The same is true for cold weather, with many disabled people suffering greatly during very severe cold spells, again due to existing conditions (e.g. joint pain) being exacerbated.  Again, the only way to avoid problems here is to increase the level of heating, which again has financial implications.  We know that, as well as a general rise in temperatures, in the UK we are going to see an increase in extreme weather events, both hot and cold, and therefore the above problems are only likely to get worse5.

Finally, after the what, why and how, I was asked what needs to happen and whether I believe disabled people should be more involved in the fight against anthropogenic climate change.  As I explained to the journalist, I need to be a bit careful in answering these questions, because I see my role as a Climate Scientist as not to be preachy and tell people what they SHOULD be doing, but rather to be scientific and tell people what they COULD be doing.  It is then up to the individual to decide whether or not to take any action. Some Climate Scientists do not agree with this attitude, arguing that we should be preaching the good message, and I respect this way of thinking.  But I do not share it.

With that in mind, although I believe everybody can take some personal responsibility for tackling anthropogenic climate change, ultimately the problem is only going to be solved at the international level.  This of course means governmental action, working together globally across multiple countries and continents.  Governmental action is starting to happen, with the first concrete pledges coming from the Paris Agreement in 2015 and, at the time of writing, COP26 being in full-swing in Glasgow; so far signs are positive with, for example, a pledge to end all deforestation by 2030.  But it needs to go further.  More extensive governmental action is only going to happen if there is enough public pressure from the people that elect those governments.  As individuals, I believe that the best thing we can do to help this is simply to
talk about it; to understand it, to bring it into our everyday lives and conversations, and to get involved in lobbying both local businesses and (possibly more remote) government institutions. To use the dietary argument (discussed below), supermarkets are only going to keep stocking meat and fish as long as there is a public demand for it.  Banks and businesses are only going to invest in fossil fuel companies whilst they have customers; if their customers go elsewhere, to more environmentally-friendly competitors, things will change.

To answer the question over whether I believe disabled people should be more involved in the fight against anthropogenic climate change: I don’t just believe disabled people need to be more involved, I believe EVERYBODY needs to be more involved!  I believe that everybody can do something, if the motivation is there.  I completely appreciate that disabled people often have lots of much more pressing matters, and these should absolutely not be trivialised. Many disabled people might well argue that they cannot possibly worry about anthropogenic climate change given their own challenges and issues, and for them that might be true.  But it is not a universal law.  That being said, I do accept that when it comes to policy and structural reform, there is a danger that minority groups such as the disabled are ignored or (more likely) simply forgotten about; the case of plastic straws, mentioned in the BBC article, is a classic example of where this happened. The only way to avoid this is for disabled people to be more involved in the decision-making process from the beginning, not included as an afterthought.

So what can individuals, including disabled people, do on a personal level to tackle anthropogenic climate change?  The standard list of things to do is fairly well publicised these days, but given that this piece is about disabled people I will frame some of the answers within that context.  I will also give some examples of what I do on a personal basis but, to stress what I said above, I am not arguing that anybody SHOULD do these things. 

Firstly, people can cut down on transport, and in particular flying and the use of cars.  Concerning disabled people, and in particular wheelchair users, air travel is and has always been extremely challenging anyway, so may not be much of an issue. But it is certainly something to think about.  For myself, I am lucky enough that I am able to use air travel (although it is far from easy), and historically have flown all over the world for both work and pleasure. These days I am acutely aware of the hypocrisy of this, and have therefore cut down massively; I will never again take any domestic flight, and will allow myself international air travel very infrequently and only when absolutely necessary.  On these occasions, I will attempt to offset my carbon emissions by donating to one of the many green projects and programmes that are now available; this, of course, requires some level of financial security, which I am blessed enough to have.   In terms of cutting down the use of cars, this is probably going to be one of the biggest problems for many disabled people (certainly myself) because public transport is generally very inaccessible.  Things have improved over the years but nowhere near enough, especially for example in the London Underground.  Therefore my car is the only option.  Many disabled people with cars, including myself, use the Motability scheme6, and whilst this is generally brilliant, there are currently no electric or hybrid wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) available using the scheme.  Even if an electric or hybrid WAV was available, it would undoubtedly be very expensive, which brings us back to the financial security argument again. Likewise, the advice of leaving your car at home and cycling to work is probably not very useful to many disabled people!

Secondly, people can make changes around their home, such as improving insulation, installing solar panels, or switching to an environmentally-friendly carbon-neutral energy company.  Again, it is often not so much the disability that is stopping people from doing any of these, but rather the cost.  All of these things are expensive, some (such as installing solar panels) more than others. Given that, as discussed above, disabled people are often in the economically vulnerable category, these may not be viable, but if they can be afforded then they could be considered. For myself, I live in a ground-floor apartment by the river (therefore potentially vulnerable to flooding!), with my block externally managed by an agent, and therefore have no control over things like insulation or installing solar panels.  I am, however, lucky enough to be financially comfortable, and therefore I use a more expensive but 100% carbon-neutral energy company.

Thirdly, people can make changes concerning their shopping, recycling and dietary habits.  Again, there is a financial element here, because for example buying organic food is undoubtedly more expensive, and therefore this may not be viable for those who are economically vulnerable.  Online food shopping has becoming increasingly popular, with most supermarket chains now offering deliveries, and (again conjecture) this is something many disabled people undoubtedly benefit from; the downside of this is that there is always a lot of plastic involved in whatever is delivered, whereas someone able to go to the supermarket would be able to choose loose fruit and so on.  But there are ways around this, the main supermarkets are slowly improving, and there are more independent companies now that deliver environmentally-friendly groceries and food.  So, as before, if it can be afforded, things like buying organic and cutting out plastic could be considered.  For myself, I use an independent company that delivers local, organic, sustainable and environmentally-friendly groceries, delivered either in compostable bags or brown paper bags; undoubtedly, this is more expensive, but I am fortunate enough to be able to meet this cost.  Likewise, when it comes to recycling, this is something that everybody can do, regardless of being disabled or not.  If a person is able to throw something in the bin, they are able to put it in the recycling bin (where appropriate).  If they are not able to throw something away themselves, because of a disability, then it is hopeful that they have someone to do it for them, be that a friend, family member or official carer.  That person can therefore use the recycling bin.  Personally, I recycle absolutely everything, and have a composter in my small garden for anything that can go in it. 

Finally, and probably the most controversial one in this category: changing dietary habits.  I am not going to argue that everybody should be vegetarian or vegan; especially for many disabled people, who have very specific diets and would not be able to cut out the protein and vitamins included in meat, fish and dairy, this would not be possible.  Physical health and how it relates to diet should be one of the more important priorities for any individual, disabled or not, therefore there should be no blanket advice.  However, if an individual (disabled or not) is able to reduce their meat consumption, especially red meat such as beef and lamb, even if only two or three days a week, then that is something that could be considered.  In the UK, only a 20% reduction of meat consumption, as well as a 20% reduction in agricultural land being taken out of meat production, is needed to reach our CO2 net zero target by 20507; based on a working week, this is only one meat-free day per week.  For me, I used to be an ardent meat eater, not because of disability issues but because I enjoyed it; however, over the last 10 years or so, I have been cutting down dramatically and, as of last year, I am now almost completely vegetarian and, many days of the week, vegan. 

Lastly, as discussed above, probably the most important thing that everybody can do, disabled or otherwise, is to simply talk about anthropogenic climate change and get involved in tackling it in some, even little, way.  I am not arguing that everybody needs to be an expert or even have a deep understanding of the subject, but even a mild interest is a step in the right direction.  For everybody able to, getting involved, even in a small way, is something that can be done by all, including disabled people.  It does not have to involve going on marches, blocking motorways or gluing oneself to railings, which many disabled people (including myself) would not be able to do physically.  But it can involve talking to people (such as friends and family members), talking about it on social media, and joining climate-related groups; the latter, in particular, has become easier since the COVID pandemic, with virtual meetings now commonplace, something which is much easier for many disabled people if they struggle to leave their home.

To end this post with some positivity, and indeed the way I ended what I wrote for the journalist, I believe there are many good reasons to be hopeful when it comes to tackling anthropogenic climate change, whoever the individual is and whether or not they have a disability.  The ways of doing what needs to be done are well understood, and the science is clear on how to do things like Carbon Capture and Storage or how to reduce our carbon footprint on an individual level.  The problem, and the concern, is the apparent lack of motivation and willpower to do these things, both at the individual and political level.  Unfortunately many of the above things that individuals can do will involve a loss of some sort (be it financial, social or personal lifestyle changes) and many people, such as those with disabilities, may not be able to manage that loss. Only time will tell if these attitudes will change; there has certainly been a dramatic shift in the last ten years, but this needs to continue.  At the political level, meetings such as COP26 will be vitally important, but again only time will tell if these result in actual action or just more discussion. 

References

1Powell, A. (2021).  ‘Disabled people in employment’.  House of Commons Library,
UK Parliament.  https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7540/CBP-7540.pdf.  Accessed 16/10/21.

2Liebmann, D. (2021).  ‘The Intersection of Disability and Climate Change’.  Harvard Graduate School of Education.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/21/03/intersection-disability-and-climate-change.  Accessed 16/10/21.

3Collins M., M. Sutherland, L. Bouwer, S.-M. Cheong, T. Frölicher, H. Jacot Des Combes, M. Koll Roxy, I. Losada, K. McInnes, B. Ratter, E. Rivera-Arriaga, R.D. Susanto, D. Swingedouw, and L. Tibig (2019). ‘Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risk’. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/10_SROCC_Ch06_FINAL.pdf.  Accessed 16/10/21.

4Harrington, S.  (2019).  ‘How Extreme Weather Threatens People with Disabilities’.  Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-extreme-weather-threatens-people-with-disabilities/.  Accessed 16/10/21.

5UK Met Office (2021).  ‘Effects of climate change’.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change.
Accessed 16/10/21.

6https://www.motability.co.uk/.  Accessed 16/10/21.

7The Lancet Planetary Health (2019).  ‘More than a diet’.  https://www.thelancet.co

————————

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Dr Charlie JR Williams BA DPhil FRGS, Climate Scientist and Research Fellow in the School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol as part of our COP26 blog series. You can follow Charlie on Twitter at @charliejrwill.

Dr Charlie Williams

 

 

Voices from Small Island Developing States: priorities for COP26 and beyond

Posted on by janet.crompton

The School of Education’s, Education in Small States Research Group (ESSRG) in collaboration with the Cabot Institute for the Environment and the Centre for Comparative and International Research in Education (CIRE), have produced a short (15 minute) video as a direct contribution to COP26 in Glasgow. This has been developed from the zoom recording of a joint online event titled ‘Voices from SIDS at the Sharp End of Environmental Uncertainty: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Speak to COP26’ held on 5 October 2021.

This professionally developed video highlights the ‘voices’, views and climate change priorities held by youth, community members, traditional village elders and national leaders ‘Living at the Sharp End of Environmental Uncertainty’ in all three global regions of SIDS: the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific (see www.smallstates.net).

The video also includes a response from Professor Dann Mitchell from the Cabot Institute, and a commentary from University of Bristol Alumni and long-time Governor-General of St Lucia (1997-2018), Dame Pearlette Louisy.

To maintain our input for COP26 discussions, this Cabot Institute blog reinforces the key messages from the video presentation in the words of the lead participants from Saint Lucia, The Maldives and Tuvalu: messages that we hope others will continue to share and support.

Saint Lucia

COP26 – Can Glasgow deliver?

“One Point Five to Stay Alive”. This was perhaps the most memorable phrase on the minds and lips of delegates when the Conference of Parties (COP 21) ended in Paris a few short years ago. The small island developing states seemed to have punched above their weight when they persuaded the international community to commit in principle to keep world temperatures and sea level rise below the 1.5 degree-level so that they could survive. The euphoria then was palpable and undeniable.

(Artist: Jonathan Gladding)

But, as we engage in Glasgow and COP 26, what was hailed as an infectious rallying cry must not be allowed to lose its lustre and become just another catchy phrase or worn-out platitude. The United Nations Secretary General’s fears that “Glasgow may not be able to deliver” could be seen as salt on an already open wound … but let us hope that it is a timely warning to others worldwide, a plea that helps to keep alive the hopes that SIDS are holding on to.

What then lies in store for small island developing states? Surely, they cannot be faulted for sitting idly by, for they have been very proactive in addressing climate change issues in order to build their resilience against this existential threat. The Caribbean region, for example, has recently released The State of the Caribbean Climate Report which is aimed at strengthening the strategic planning and decision-making processes that will be required to accelerate their resilience building efforts. The projections for the region are not at all encouraging. They point to rising sea levels, hotter temperatures (predicted to reach a rise of 1.76 degrees by the end of the century), more variable rainfall with increased drying (by almost 17%), increased sea surface temperatures and more intense Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. (See: Climate Studies Group Mona (Eds.) 2020, The State of the Caribbean Climate. Produced for the Caribbean Development Bank).

These predictions will undoubtedly adversely affect the core livelihoods of Caribbean people already living in a very vulnerable geographic space, who must learn how to live both now and in the future. The international community meeting in Glasgow must therefore make every effort to facilitate the sustainable development of our small island developing states. Education for resilience and sustainable development must take centre stage now, for time is not at all on our side.

In 1993, one of Saint Lucia’s Nobel Laureates, Sir Derek Walcott (Literature 1992), warned in his Nobel Lecture that “a morning could come when governments might ask what happened not only to our forests and our bays, but to a whole people”.

We appeal therefore to COP 26 to heed these warnings to ensure that such a morning never comes. Living at the sharp end of environmental uncertainty, as small island developing states are, cannot be considered sustainable living.

The time to act decisively is now. Glasgow must deliver. Failing which, we will have nullified the very concept of sustainable development proposed by the Brundtland Report … that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In referring readers back to the video, we wish to thank Curtis Raphael who helped to put the Saint Lucia section together, and Crispin d’Auvergne, the Programme Director of the Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) who provided access to the two Reports cited in our presentation.

Maldives

The contribution to the video from the Maldives aims to bring multiple and diverse voices from the islands of the Maldives to Glasgow and COP26. It highlights their everyday experiences and anxieties about the environment and climate change. These voices come from a range of contributors from different levels of the society, including school children, fishermen, a grandfather, divers, surfers, environmentalists, farmers, entrepreneurs, policy makers and politicians.

It is clear there is a keen awareness of the fragility of the local biophysical environment and the existential threat posed by climate change on livelihoods and the very survival of the nation and the population. As is evident, climate anxiety is up close and personal for all who live in the country. There is an acute awareness of the importance of protecting the environment to mitigate a potential catastrophe caused by rising sea levels.

While Maldivian authorities continue to develop domestic policies to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, these actions at the local level are woefully insufficient. The larger polluters worldwide also need to commit to real action in their pledges, and act now to reduce harmful emissions at the same time as they assist smaller nations to convert to and adapt to low carbon economies.

Image credit: savefainu

Tuvalu

We hope our video from Tuvalu will speak for itself. We are one of the most vulnerable nations in the world, facing a 2-meter rise in sea levels that will inundate our nation. Our plea to the international community highlights the fact that we are relational beings, what we do today one way or the other will affect people around us, people around the globe and even you and me, someday. Therefore, as global citizens, this is the time that we must work towards building a safe, healthy and resilient world so that one day we can proudly say, Yes ! We were the generation that made it happen – we set aside our differences and as a kaiga (family) we created this fantastic world for our children, our future.

This professionally developed video and the full, 90 minute, Zoom recording are also available on the Cabot YouTube Channel. See http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/2021/soe-cop26.html.

———————————

This blog is written by Dame Pearlette Louisy; Dr Merle St Clair-Auguste; Dr Aminath Muna; Dr Aminath Shiyama; Dr Rosiana Lagi; and the ESSRG Leadership Team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read all blogs in our COP26 blog series:

 

Humanity is compressing millions of years of natural change into just a few centuries

Posted on by janet.crompton
The near future may be similar to the mid-Pliocene warm period a few million years ago.
Daniel Eskridge / shutterstock

Many numbers are swirling around the climate negotiations at the UN climate summit in Glasgow, COP26. These include global warming targets of 1.5℃ and 2.0℃, recent warming of 1.1℃, remaining CO₂ budget of 400 billion tonnes, or current atmospheric CO₂ of 415 parts per million.

It’s often hard to grasp the significance of these numbers. But the study of ancient climates can give us an appreciation of their scale compared to what has occurred naturally in the past. Our knowledge of ancient climate change also allows scientists to calibrate their models and therefore improve predictions of what the future may hold.

Recent climate changes in context.
IPCC AR6, chapter 2

Recent work, summarised in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has allowed scientists to refine their understanding and measurement of past climate changes. These changes are recorded in rocky outcrops, sediments from the ocean floor and lakes, in polar ice sheets, and in other shorter-term archives such as tree rings and corals. As scientists discover more of these archives and get better at using them, we have become increasingly able to compare recent and future climate change with what has happened in the past, and to provide important context to the numbers involved in climate negotiations.

For instance one headline finding in the IPCC report was that global temperature (currently 1.1℃ above a pre-industrial baseline) is higher than at any time in at least the past 120,000 or so years. That’s because the last warm period between ice ages peaked about 125,000 years ago – in contrast to today, warmth at that time was driven not by CO₂, but by changes in Earth’s orbit and spin axis. Another finding regards the rate of current warming, which is faster than at any time in the past 2,000 years – and probably much longer.

But it is not only past temperature that can be reconstructed from the geological record. For instance, tiny gas bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice can record atmospheric CO₂ concentrations back to 800,000 years ago. Beyond that, scientists can turn to microscopic fossils preserved in seabed sediments. These properties (such as the types of elements that make up the fossil shells) are related to how much CO₂ was in the ocean when the fossilised organisms were alive, which itself is related to how much was in the atmosphere. As we get better at using these “proxies” for atmospheric CO₂, recent work has shown that the current atmospheric CO₂ concentration of around 415 parts per million (compared to 280 ppm prior to industrialisation in the early 1800s), is greater than at any time in at least the past 2 million years.

chart showing climate changes over history
An IPCC graphic showing climate changes at various points since 56 million years ago. Note most rows show changes over thousands or millions of years, while the top row (recent changes) is just a few decades.
IPCC AR6, chapter 2 (modified by Darrell Kaufman)

Other climate variables can also be compared to past changes. These include the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide (now greater than at any time in at least 800,000 years), late summer Arctic sea ice area (smaller than at any time in at least the past 1,000 years), glacier retreat (unprecedented in at least 2,000 years) sea level (rising faster than at any point in at least 3,000 years), and ocean acidity (unusually acidic compared to the past 2 million years).

In addition, changes predicted by climate models can be compared to the past. For instance an “intermediate” amount of emissions will likely lead to global warming of between 2.3°C and 4.6°C by the year 2300, which is similar to the mid-Pliocene warm period of about 3.2 million years ago. Extremely high emissions would lead to warming of somewhere between 6.6°C and 14.1°C, which just overlaps with the warmest period since the demise of the dinosaurs – the “Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum” kicked off by massive volcanic eruptions about 55 million years ago. As such, humanity is currently on the path to compressing millions of years of temperature change into just a couple of centuries.

Small animals in a forest
Many mammals, like these horse-ancestors ‘Eohippus’, first appeared after a sudden warm period 55 million years ago.
Daniel Eskridge / shutterstock

Distant past can held predict the near future

For the first time in an IPCC report, the latest report uses ancient time periods to refine projections of climate change. In previous IPCC reports, future projections have been produced simply by averaging results from all climate models, and using their spread as a measure of uncertainty. But for this new report, temperature and rainfall and sea level projections relied more heavily on those models that did the best job of simulating known climate changes.

Part of this process was based on each individual model’s “climate sensitivity” – the amount it warms when atmospheric CO₂ is doubled. The “correct” value (and uncertainty range) of sensitivity is known from a number of different lines of evidence, one of which comes from certain times in the ancient past when global temperature changes were driven by natural changes in CO₂, caused for example by volcanic eruptions or change in the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere as rocks are eroded away. Combining estimates of ancient CO₂ and temperature therefore allows scientists to estimate the “correct” value of climate sensitivity, and so refine their future projections by relying more heavily on those models with more accurate climate sensitivities.

Overall, past climates show us that recent changes across all aspects of the Earth system are unprecedented in at least thousands of years. Unless emissions are reduced rapidly and dramatically, global warming will reach a level that has not been seen for millions of years. Let’s hope those attending COP26 are listening to messages from the past.

——————————

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Dan Lunt, Professor of Climate Science, University of Bristol and Darrell Kaufman, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Northern Arizona University

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

Dan Lunt

 

 

Read all blogs in our COP26 blog series:

Dune: we simulated the desert planet of Arrakis to see if humans could survive there

Posted on by janet.crompton

Dune, the epic series of sci-fi books by Frank Herbert, now turned into a movie of the same name, is set in the far future on the desert planet of Arrakis. Herbert outlined a richly-detailed world that, at first glance, seems so real we could imagine ourselves within it.

However, if such a world did exist, what would it actually be like?

We are scientists with specific expertise in climate modelling, so we simulated the climate of Arrakis to find out. We wanted to know if the physics and environment of such a world would stack up against a real climate model.

Here’s a visualisation of our climate model of Arrakis:

You can zoom in on particular features and highlight things like temperature or wind speed at our website Climate Archive.

When we were done, we were very pleased to discover that Herbert had envisioned an environment that for the most part meets expectations. We might need to occasionally suspend disbelief, but much of Arrakis itself would indeed be habitable, albeit inhospitable.

How do you build a fantasy world like Arrakis?

We started with a climate model commonly used to predict weather and climate here on Earth. To use these sorts of models you have to decide on the physical laws (well-known in the case of planet Earth) and then input data on everything from the shape of mountains to the strength of the sun or the makeup of the atmosphere. The model can then simulate the climate and tell you roughly what the weather might be like.

We decided to keep the same fundamental physical laws that govern weather and climate here on Earth. If our model presented something completely strange and exotic, this could suggest those laws were different on Arrakis, or Frank Herbert’s fantastical vision of Arrakis was just that, fantasy.

Height map (in metres) of Arrakis.
Farnsworth et al, Author provided

We then needed to tell the climate model certain things about Arrakis, based on the detailed information found in the main novels and the accompanying Dune Encyclopedia. These included the planet’s topography and its orbit, which was was essentially circular, akin to the Earth today. The shape of an orbit can really impact the climate: see the long and irregular winters in Game of Thrones.

Finally, we told the model what the atmosphere was made of. For the most part it is quite similar to that of the Earth today, although with less carbon dioxide (350 parts per million as opposed to our 417 ppm). The biggest difference is the ozone concentration. On Earth, there is very little ozone in the lower atmosphere, only around 0.000001%. On Arrakis it is 0.5%. Ozone is important as it is around 65 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO₂ over a 20-year period.

Having fed in all the necessary data, we then sat back and waited. Complex models like this take time to run, in this case more than three weeks. We needed a huge supercomputer to be able to crunch the hundreds of thousands of calculations required to simulate Arrakis. However, what we found was worth the wait.

Arrakis’s climate is basically plausible

The books and film describe a planet with unforgiving sun and desolate wastelands of sand and rock. However, as you move closer to the polar regions towards the cities of Arrakeen and Carthag, the climate in the book begins to change into something that might be inferred as more hospitable.

Yet our model tells a different story. In our model of Arrakis, the warmest months in the tropics hit around 45°C, whereas in the coldest months they do not drop below 15°C. Similar to that of Earth. The most extreme temperatures would actually occur in the mid-latitudes and polar regions. Here summer can be as hot as 70°C on the sand (also suggested in the book). Winters are just as extreme, as low as -40°C in the mid-latitudes and down to -75°C in the poles.

This is counter intuitive as the equatorial region receives more energy from the sun. However, in the model the polar regions of Arrakis have significantly more atmospheric moisture and high cloud cover which acts to warm the climate since water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

gif of temperatures
Monthly temperatures on Arrakis, according to the model. Both poles have very cold winters and very hot summers.
Author provided

The book says that there is no rain on Arrakis. However, our model does suggest that very small amounts of rainfall would occur, confined to just the higher latitudes in the summer and autumn, and only on mountains and plateaus. There would be some clouds in the tropics as well as polar latitudes, varying from season to season.

The book also mentions that polar ice caps exist, at least in the northern hemisphere, and have for a long time. But this is where the books perhaps differ the most from our model, which suggests summer temperatures would melt any polar ice, and there would be no snowfall to replenish the ice caps in winter.

Hot but habitable

Could humans survive on such a desert planet? First, we must make an assumption that the human-like people in the book and film share similar thermal tolerances to humans today. If that’s the case then, contrary to the book and film, it seems the tropics would be the most habitable area. As there is so little humidity there, survivable wet-bulb temperatures – a measure of “habitability” that combines temperature and humidity – are never exceeded.

The mid-latitudes, where most people on Arrakis live, are actually the most dangerous in terms of heat. In the lowlands, monthly average temperatures are often above 50-60°C, with maximum daily temperatures even higher. Such temperatures are deadly for humans.

Four people in black rubbery suits in desert
Stillsuit models, autumn 10191 collection.
Chiabella James / Warner Bros

We do know that all humanoid life on Arrakis outside of habitable places must wear “stillsuits”, designed to keep the wearer cool and reclaim body moisture from sweating, urination and breathing to provide drinkable water. This is important as stated in the book that there is no rainfall on Arrakis, no standing bodies of open water and little atmospheric moisture that can be reclaimed.

The planet also gets very cold outside of the tropics, with winter temperatures that would also be uninhabitable without technology. Cities like Arrakeen and Carthag would suffer from both heat and cold stress, like a more extreme version of parts of Siberia on Earth which can have both uncomfortably hot summers and brutally cold winters.

It’s important to remember that Herbert wrote the first Dune novel way back in 1965. This was two years before recent Nobel-winner Syukuro Manabe published his seminal first climate model, and Herbert did not have the advantage of modern supercomputers, or indeed any computer. Given that, the world he created looks remarkably consistent six decades on.

The authors modified a well-used climate model for exoplanet research and applied it to the planet in Dune. The work was carried out in their spare time and is intended as an appropriate outreach piece to demonstrate how climate scientists use mathematical models to better understand our world and exoplanets. It will feed into future academic outputs on desert worlds and exoplanets.The Conversation

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment members, Dr Alex Farnsworth, Senior Research Associate in Meteorology and Dr Sebastian Steinig, Research Associate in Paleoclimate Modelling, University of Bristol; and Michael Farnsworth, Research Lead Future Electrical Machines Manufacturing Hub, University of Sheffield.

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

Are you a journalist looking for climate experts? We’ve got you covered

Posted on by janet.crompton

We’ve got lots of media trained climate change experts. If you need an expert for an interview, here is a list of Caboteers you can approach. All media enquiries should be made via Victoria Tagg, our dedicated Media and PR Manager at the University of Bristol. Email victoria.tagg@bristol.ac.uk or call +44 (0)117 428 2489.

Climate change / climate emergency / climate science / climate-induced disasters

Dr Eunice Lo – expert in changes in extreme weather events such as heatwaves and cold spells, and how these changes translate to negative health outcomes including illnesses and deaths. Follow on Twitter @EuniceLoClimate.

Professor Daniela Schmidt – expert in the causes and effects of climate change on marine systems. Dani is also a Lead Author on the IPCC reports. Dani will be at COP26.

Dr Katerina Michalides – expert in drylands, drought and desertification and helping East African rural communities to adapt to droughts and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_kmichaelides.

Professor Dann Mitchell – expert in how climate change alters the atmospheric circulation, extreme events, and impacts on human health. Dann is also a Met Office Chair. Dann will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateDann.

Professor Dan Lunt – expert on past climate change, with a focus on understanding how and why climate has changed in the past and what we can learn about the future from the past. Dan is also a Lead Author on IPCC AR6. Dan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @ClimateSamwell.

Professor Jonathan Bamber – expert on the impact of melting land ice on sea level rise (SLR) and the response of the ocean to changes in freshwater forcing. Jonathan will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @jlbamber

Professor Paul Bates CBE – expert in the science of flooding, risk and reducing threats to life and economic losses worldwide. Follow on Twitter @paul_d_bates

Professor Tony Payne – expert in the effects of climate change on earth systems and glaciers.

Dr Matt Palmer – expert in sea level and ocean heat content research at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Bristol. Follow on Twitter @mpclimate.

Net Zero / Energy / Renewables

Professor Valeska Ting – Engineer and expert in net zero, low carbon technologies, low carbon energy and flying. Also an accomplished STEM communicator, is an BAME Expert Voice for the BBC Academy. Follow on Twitter @ProfValeskaTing.

Professor Philip Taylor – Expert in net zero, energy systems, energy storage, utilities, electric power distribution. Also Pro-Vice Chancellor at the University of Bristol. Philip will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @rolyatlihp.

Dr Colin Nolden – expert in sustainable energy policy, regulation and business models and interactions with secondary markets such as carbon markets and other sectors such as mobility. Colin will be at COP26.

Climate finance

Dr Rachel James – Expert in climate finance, damage, loss and decision making. Also has expertise in African climate systems and contemporary and future climate change. Follow on Twitter @_RachelJames

Climate justice

Dr Alix Dietzel – climate justice and climate policy expert. Focusing on the global and local scale and interested in how just the response to climate change is and how we can ensure a just transition. Alix will be at COP26. Follow on Twitter @alixdietzel

Dr Ed Atkins – expert on environmental and energy policy, politics and governance and how they must be equitable and inclusive. Also interested in local politics of climate change policies and energy generation and consumption. Follow on Twitter @edatkins_.

Climate activism / Extinction Rebellion

Dr Oscar Berglund – expert on climate change activism and particularly Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the use of civil disobedience. Follow on Twitter @berglund_oscar.

Air pollution / Greenhouse gases

Dr Aoife Grant – expert in greenhouse gases and methane. Has set up a monitoring station at Glasgow for COP26 to record emissions.

Professor Matt Rigby – expert on sources and sinks of greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances. Follow on Twitter @TheOtherMRigby.

Land, nature and food

Dr Jo House – expert on land and climate interactions, including emissions of carbon dioxide from land use change (e.g. deforestation), climate mitigation potential from the land (e.g. afforestation, bioenergy), and implications of science for policy. Previously Government Office for Science’s Head of Climate Advice. Follow on Twitter @Drjohouse.
Dr Taro Takahashi – expert on farming, livestock production systems as well as progamme evaluation and general equilibrium modelling of pasture and livestock-based economies.

Climate change and infrastructure

Dr Maria Pregnolato – expert on effects of climate change and flooding on infrastructure. Follow on Twitter @MariaPregnolat1.

Plastic and the environment

Dr Charlotte Lloyd – expert on the fate of chemicals in the terrestrial environment, including plastics, bioplastics and agricultural wastes. Follow on Twitter @DrCharlLloyd.

What else the Cabot Institute for the Environment is up to for COP26

Find out what we’re doing for COP26 on our website at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/cop26.
Watch our Cabot Conversations – 10 conversations between 2 experts on a climate change issue, all whilst an artist listens in the background and interprets the conversation into a beautiful piece of art in real time. Find out more at bristol.ac.uk/cabot/conversations.
——————————
This blog was written by Amanda Woodman-Hardy, Communications and Engagement Officer at the Cabot Institute for the Environment. Follow on Twitter @Enviro_Mand and @cabotinstitute.
 

What Europe’s exceptionally low winds mean for the future energy grid

Posted on by janet.crompton

 

Shaggyphoto / shutterstock

Through summer and early autumn 2021, Europe experienced a long period of dry conditions and low wind speeds. The beautifully bright and still weather may have been a welcome reason to hold off reaching for our winter coats, but the lack of wind can be a serious issue when we consider where our electricity might be coming from.

To meet climate mitigation targets, such as those to be discussed at the upcoming COP26 event in Glasgow, power systems are having to rapidly change from relying on fossil fuel generation to renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower. This change makes our energy systems increasingly sensitive to weather and climate variability and the possible effects of climate change.

That period of still weather badly affected wind generation. For instance, UK-based power company SSE stated that its renewable assets produced 32% less power than expected. Although this may appear initially alarming, given the UK government’s plans to become a world leader in wind energy, wind farm developers are aware these low wind “events” are possible, and understanding their impact has become a hot topic in energy-meteorology research.

A new type of extreme weather

So should we be worried about this period of low wind? In short, no. The key thing here is that we’re experiencing an extreme event. It may not be the traditional definition of extreme weather (like a large flood or a hurricane) but these periods, known in energy-meteorology as “wind-droughts”, are becoming critical to understand in order to operate power systems reliably.

Recent research I published with colleagues at the University of Reading highlighted the importance of accounting for the year-to-year variability in wind generation as we continue to invest in it, to make sure we are ready for these events when they do occur. Our team has also shown that periods of stagnant high atmospheric pressure over central Europe, which lead to prolonged low wind conditions, could become the most difficult for power systems in future.

Climate change could play a role

When we think about climate change we tend to focus much more on changes in temperature and rainfall than on possible variations in near-surface wind speed. But it is an important consideration in a power system that will rely more heavily on wind generation.

The latest IPCC report suggests that average wind speeds over Europe will reduce by 8%-10% as a result of climate change. It is important to note that wind speed projections are quite uncertain in climate models compared with those for near-surface temperatures, and it is common for different model simulations to show quite contrasting behaviour.

Colleagues and I recently analysed how wind speeds over Europe would change according to six different climate models. Some showed wind speeds increasing as temperatures warm, and others showed decreases. Understanding this in more detail is an ongoing topic of scientific research. It is important to remember that small changes in wind speed could lead to larger changes in power generation, as the power output by a turbine is related to the cube of the wind speed (a cubic number is a number multiplied by itself three times. They increase very fast: 1, 8, 27, 64 and so on).

World map with dark blue (less wind) in Europe, North America and China
Change in wind speed compared to 1986-2005 if we were to limit global warming to 1.5C. Areas in blue will have less wind; areas in green, more wind.
IPCC Interactive Atlas, CC BY-SA

The reductions in near-surface wind speeds seen in the above map could be due to a phenomenon called “global stilling”. This can be explained by the cold Arctic warming at a faster rate than equatorial regions, which means there is less difference in temperature between hot and cold areas. This temperature difference is what drives large-scale winds around the globe through a phenomenon called thermal wind balance.

With all the talk of wind power being the answer to our energy needs, amid spiralling gas prices and the countdown to COP26, the recent wind drought is a clear reminder of how variable this form of generation can be and that it cannot be the sole investment for a reliable future energy grid. Combining wind with other renewable resources such as solar, hydropower and the ability to smartly manage our electricity demand will be critical at times like this summer when the wind is not blowing.The Conversation

——————————

This blog was written the Cabot Institute for the Environment member Dr Hannah Bloomfield, Postdoctoral Researcher in Climate Risk Analytics, University of Bristol. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read all blogs in our COP26 blog series:

Looking back over a decade of Urban Pollinating in Bristol

Posted on by janet.crompton
Bees on Teasel
Two bumble bees on Teasel. Credit: crabchick

As the UK prepares to host the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 (31 October – 12 November) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 takes place online (11-15 October), I have been looking back over a decade of urban pollinating in Bristol.

One of the four COP26 goals is ‘adapt to protect communities and natural habitats’ which includes Nature Based Solutions (NBS). These are answers to global environmental challenges which are created or inspired by natural processes based on or utilising the functions of nature. For this purpose, the Urban Pollinator Project established first here in Bristol, demonstrates perfectly how natural resolutions can benefit our ecosystems on a local, national, and global scale.

Urban Pollinators 

Before 2011 an extraordinarily little amount was known about the ecology of urban pollinators in the UK. Despite pollinators maintaining a vital role in protecting our biodiversity and upholding crucial ecosystems, their role in our ever-expanding cityscapes had yet to be examined.

Only a few plants are able to self-pollinate, and as a result they are reliant on insects, birds, bees, wasps, wind, and water to keep the cogs of pollination turning. Yet, since the 1930s 97% of wildflower meadows, home to many the many species of pollinators, have been lost. As a result of this drastic loss of habitat, a recent report found that a quarter of known bee species have not been sighted  since the 1990s. Certainly, an increase in urbanisation and expansion of cities and towns into wilder areas has contributed to such a dramatic decline. And so, the question was posed – how can we make pollinating insects more resilient and adapt to our increasingly urban landscapes?

In 2011 Dr Katherine Baldock, a researcher at the University of Bristol, set out to answer these questions. Leading teams from the University of Reading, Leeds, Edinburgh, and Bristol they embarked on a four-year nationwide initiative researching insect pollinators in urban habitats in the first study of its kind – The Urban Pollinator Project.

Findings 

In Bristol, university researchers from the project examined the introduction of wildflower meadows alongside the M32 in July and August 2011. Over half of the species on Bristol’s Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List are in fact pollinators, and so not only was the Urban pollinators research unique, but vital to the future of our city’s ecology.

The findings from the study were able to report no significant difference between an abundance of pollinators and rare species in these urban wildflower meadows when compared with farms, wild areas, and nature reserves. They were also able to locate “hot spots” of pollinator diversity in cities and most importantly they were able to provide practical advice to the government, wildlife organisations, city councils and local individuals as to how to increase and improve pollinator biodiversity in urban habitats. (report)

In 2014, researchers from the Urban Pollinators Project went on to work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) using their findings to provide practical advice to the UK as part of the National Pollinator strategy, using Bristol as an example of where urban pollinating strategies had already been implemented.

Local impact 

Locally, the team of urban pollinators have left a big impression on the Bristol community. The research conducted by the urban pollinators has gone on to have a significant impact on local wildlife trusts, businesses, individuals, and policies, influencing and advising on many successful conservation initiatives across the city.

At the University of Bristol, students in 2012 and 2013 planted wildflower meadows across the campus, creating a 30 square metre pollinating zone which in addition to its ecological benefits, looked great too. Many other organisations followed suit and urban wildlife zones cropped up across Bristol localities making room for pollinating insects and raising awareness for their protection throughout different communities.

In 2014, the Get Bristol Buzzing initiative was formed in yet another first of its kind. In a partnership between Avon Wildlife Trust, Bee Bristol, Bristol City Council, Bristol Friends of the Earth, Buglife, South Gloucestershire Council and the University of West England they all united, dedicated and determined to protect and increase pollinating habitat across Bristol. Similarly, they committed themselves to raising awareness for the importance of insect pollinators and spread the word around local communities, organisations, and businesses. (report)

In 2015 the University of Bristol led “The Greater Bristol Pollinator strategy” which in 2017 was able to report an increase in pollinators in the Greater Bristol area.

Global impact

The decline in pollinating insects is occurring globally, and at a rapid rate. To help to protect global biodiversity the blueprint established in Bristol could certainly provide a nature-based solution in the face of future global environmental challenges.

Today the impact of pollinators is no longer just being investigated in urban environments across the UK. Current project-lead and original member of the Urban Pollinators Project Professor Jane Memmott has recently been examining the role of pollinators in protecting food chains in Nepal. Her dedication to improving ecological networks and pollinating systems has most recently led her to a pioneering discovery that pollinating animals can improve nutrients in food in developing countries.

The project today

This year, continuing their excellent work, Professor Jane Memmott and the Urban Pollinator Project discovered that urban gardens are vital for protecting pollinating insects. Published in the Journal of Ecology, this research found that city gardens account for an impressive 85% of nectar produced in Urban areas generating the most nectar per unit area of land. With 29% of land in cities made up of domestic gardens, it truly is vital that we seek to cultivate thriving urban environments to protect our pollinating ecosystems.

Thanks to these dedicated ecologists it has been a remarkable decade for the Bristol bees, hopefully the next decade will be even better.

So, what can you do to turn your garden into a pollinating haven?

(1) Plant for our pollinators:

Bees, wasps, butterflies, and other pollinating insects love nectar and pollen rich flowers and trees. Try filling your garden, allotment, porch, windowsill, or any available space with the flowers they love!

(2) Leave areas to go wild:

Save yourself from gardening and allow plants to grow freely, the wilder the area the more pollinators it will attract.

(3) Ditch pesticides:

Many pesticides can be harmful if not kill pollinating insects. Abandoning pesticides will increase the chances of making your area a pollinating zone!

(4) Mow your lawn less:

Research published in the Biological Conservation Journal found that by mowing your lawn once every two weeks instead of one increases the number of bees in that area by a huge 30%.

(5) Make a bee house:

Make a bee house of bamboo sticks to give your local bees somewhere to lay their eggs and protect themselves from harsh weather conditions.

—————————-
This blog is written by Lois Barton, Cabot Institute for the Environment Global Environmental Challenges Master’s student and temporary Comms Assistant. Lois’s research explores the role of the arts in ecological movements in Chile, specifically surrounding how visual culture increases visibility for environmental causes.

 

Interested in postgraduate study? The Cabot Institute runs a unique Master’s by Research programme that offers a blend of in-depth research on a range of Global Environmental Challenges, with interdisciplinary cohort building and training. Find out more.

Tackling urban landslides in an uncertain future

Posted on by janet.crompton

One of the challenges of the 21st century is how to reconcile global urban growth with the prevention and mitigation of environmental disasters, such as those caused by landslides. Every year 300 million people are exposed to landslides worldwide, with over 4,000 fatalities, 250,000 of people affected, and billions of US dollars of economic damage. However, impacts might be worse in the future for two main reasons. First, severe precipitations might become more frequent under climate change, causing more rainfall-triggered landslides. Second, growing urban population will lead more people to live in areas exposed to landslides globally, and in particular in developing countries where low-income dwellers are starting to overcrowd landslide-prone areas such as steep slopes. With more hurricanes to come and more people at risk, understanding where and when landslides might occur is becoming increasingly crucial.

Current predictions are too uncertain to support decisions

One method to predict landslides in the future is to look at landslides in the past. The analysis of historical records allows the identification of those hillslopes that have failed in the past. Currently stable hillslopes where similar conditions exist (for example, similar slope gradients) are ‘tagged’ with high landslide probability. These areas might be then excluded for construction development or might be the first to be alerted when a severe precipitation is expected.

This approach to landslide prediction is, however, often insufficient. Landslides and rainfall records as well as data on hillslope properties are often affected by large errors or unavailable in sufficient detail. In addition, what happened in the past might not be representative of what may happen in the future, making historical records less useful for long-term projections. Climate and socio-economic models can be used to build scenarios of how rainfall patters and cities might look like in the future. Unfortunately, these scenarios can vary significantly because they depend on highly uncertain factors such as future carbon emissions. As a result, landslide estimates can also be very different and sometimes even contradictory – some predicting an increase and others a decrease in landslides occurrence – undermining their practical use for risk management.

From ‘predict then act’ to ‘act now with low regrets’

Instead of trying to predict how climate and urban expansion will evolve in the future, I used a different approach centred on decision making. I ask the question: how much climate and/or urban expansion needs to change before landslide hazard significantly increases?

The scientific method behind my analysis (Bozzolan et al. 2020, NHESS) first generates thousands of synthetic but realistic hillslopes representations of the study area. Then, it imposes hypothetical scenarios of increasing rainfall severities and urban expansion, also considering different construction features that could affect slope stability (for example, the presence or not of adequate slope drainage such as roof gutters on houses).

Finally, it uses a computer model to assess the stability of these virtual hillslopes, generating a new synthetic library of landslide records. By exploring the library is now possible to identify those combinations of rainfall and urban development conditions (e.g., with or without roof gutters) for which hillslopes are most likely to fail. ‘Low-regret’ mitigation actions will be those that perform well across scenarios and therefore should be prioritised even if future rainfall and urban predictions remain unknown.

A practical tool for decision makers

This new method which explores many ‘what if’ scenarios is a useful tool for decision makers in landslide risk management and reduction. For example, figure 1 shows how a map of landslide probability in Saint Lucia (Eastern Caribbean) might look like if the severity of a destructive rainstorm such as the 2010 Hurricane Tomas were to increase under climate change or if unregulated housing expanded on slopes susceptible to failure. The analysis also shows that when both scenarios are included landslide probability disproportionally increases, revealing that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’. This information could be used to assess the risk and damages associated with each scenario and to identify low-regret nation-wide risk reduction and risk transfer strategies.

Figure 1: Maps of landslide probability in Saint Lucia under different ‘what if’ scenarios. The percentage (+%) indicates the increase of areas with high landslide probability.

The same method can also be applied to quantify the cost-benefit ratio of different landslide mitigation options, such as improving urban drainage or tree planting at the community/household scale. In Freetown (Sierra Leone), for example, I collaborated with the engineering firm Arup to identify those landslide hazard mitigation actions that would lead to the largest reduction in landslide probability for certain locations or types of slopes, and should thus be prioritised. The information generated through this analysis not only provides evidence to governments and investors for informing urban planning, but it might also encourage landslide probability from low to high micro-insurance in disaster prevention, where insurers offer lower premiums to reward risk-reducing behaviours.

—————————–

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member, Dr Elisa Bozzolan from the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol.

The COP26 Goals and Small Island Developing States

Posted on by janet.crompton

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have had a giant impact on international climate negotiations. As part of the Alliance of Small Island States and the High Ambition Coalition, SIDS have pushed for the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target through their tagline “1.5°C to stay alive” as well as their advocacy for loss and damage and climate adaptation finance. Without them, the Paris Agreement would not be nearly as ambitious [1], and there would not be the focus on the 1.5°C temperature goal to the extent there is today. SIDS are amongst the countries on the frontline of the climate emergency, whilst being some of the least responsible for greenhouse gases causing anthropogenic climate change.

But SIDS have not sat back quietly whilst their future becomes more uncertain. They are fighting for the assurances of climate mitigation from the rest of the world to help ensure their habitable future.

As part of this year’s United Nations Climate Conference COP26, four goals have been set to drive forward ambition to tackle the climate emergency. Here are four reasons why achieving these goals is not only crucial for the future of humanity, but especially for SIDS.

1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5°C within reach

SIDS have long been champions of the 1.5°C goal, underlining the science that demonstrates that limiting warming to 2°C would be inadequate to ensure a habitable future for some small island states. Following the 2018 IPCC report looking at the impacts of a world at 1.5°C and 2°C, a 1.5°C global temperature rise in SIDS would already lead to [2]:

    ↑ More intense rainfall events

    ↑ More extreme heat

    ↑ Longer and more extreme drought

    ↑ Increased flooding

    ↑ Freshwater stress

    ↑ Significant loss of coral reefs

    ↑ Sea level rise

Any increase greater than 1.5°C would compound and exacerbate these risks further and could lead to the loss of ancestral homelands for thousands of people in low-lying islands such as the Maldives or Kiribati. For other islands, there would be severe impacts on lives and livelihoods. To highlight just one example, communities in small islands often rely on coral reefs for food, storm protection and tourism (to name but a few of the many reasons coral reefs are critical to coastal communities all over the world). But at 2°C warming, 99% of coral reefs are likely to perish [2]. For some small islands it really is “1.5°C to stay alive”.

2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats

Adaptation will be required in SIDS to help communities adjust to the consequences of a more extreme climate. From coral reef and mangrove restoration in the Caribbean, to early warning systems in the Pacific, adaptation strategies in SIDS are accelerating, but this must be aided by appropriate finance and support. The United Nations proposes that at least 50% of climate finance should be spent on building resilience and adaptation, but financial capital is currently the key limiting factor for adaptation in SIDS. Mobilising finance to boost adaptation projects would be the first step up a long ladder in assisting SIDS facing the steep cost of adapting to a climate they did not create.

3. Mobilise finance

Developing nations such as those in SIDS need financial assistance from developed economies to fund adaptation and the transition to a greener future. This is entirely reasonable considering that developed nations have built their economies using fossil fuels, of which the consequences are a) already impacting SIDS today and b) not an option to fuel sustainable development. Developed countries pledged to raise at least $100billion annually by 2020 to support developing countries with adaptation and mitigation, but in 2018 just $78.9billion had been mobilised [3]. Even if this $100billion is attained it would still be vastly insufficient, considering estimated costs of adaptation in developing countries will be $280-500billion in 2050 [4].

But what about the communities or entire islands who cannot adapt? SIDS have also been key advocates for loss and damage reparations, seeking compensation for their inequitable experience of climate-related disasters and for the loss and damages that cannot be recovered or adapted against. Broadly speaking, this refers to climate-related loss and damages – such as those from weather and hazard events we know are being made more likely and more severe by climate change – as well as helping to avoid future loss and damage through adequate risk reduction and adaptation.

In whichever form these reparations come, it is vital that they come faster and with bolder ambition.

4. Work together to deliver ambition into action

Small Island Developing States cannot combat the climate emergency alone. After all, the very reason for the extreme injustice of climate change in SIDS is that they have done little to cause the problem that they are bearing the consequences of. To put this in context, SIDS are responsible collectively for less than 1% of global greenhouse emissions [5]. This is where governments, business, and civil society from all over the world come in. SIDS (and the entire planet, frankly) need all countries to come forward with robust plans and targets for slashing emissions by at least 50% by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050, as well as agreeing to mobilise finance to support adaptation against the damage we have already locked in.

Time is ticking. Let’s ensure these goals are achieved at COP26 to help speed up our race against the clock, so that we can safeguard a habitable future for SIDS, for ourselves and the planet.

References

[1] Ourbak, T. & Magnan, A. K. The Paris Agreement and climate change negotiations: Small Islands, big players. Regional Environmental Change vol. 18 2201–2207 (2018).

[2] Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5oC global warming on natural and human systems. in Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, (ed. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 175–311 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018).

[3] OECD. Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-18. OECD https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/climate-finance-provided-and-mobilised-by-developed-countries-in-2013-18_f0773d55-en (2020) doi:10.1787/F0773D55-EN.

[4] United Nations Environment Programme. Adaptation Gap Report 2020. https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2020 (2020).

[5] Thomas, A. et al. Climate Change and Small Island Developing States. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 45, (2020).

Header image: Leigh Blackall (CC BY 2.0)

—————————

This blog is written by Cabot Institute for the Environment member Leanne Archer, School of Geographical Science, University of Bristol. Leanne is a NERC GW4+ PhD student interested in disaster risk in Small Island Developing States, investigating how flood inundation estimates could be improved in small islands under current and future climate change. You can follow Leanne on Twitter @leanne_archer_

Sign up to our weekly newsletter for all the latest news, events and opportunities at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot/news/subscribe. Find out more about our unique Master's by Research in Global Environmental Challenges at https://bristol.ac.uk/cabot-masters.