DOCSLIB.ORG

Mitigation Strategies for Avoiding Dangerous to Catastrophic Climate Changes PERSPECTIVE Yangyang Xua,1 and Veerabhadran Ramanathanb,1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mitigation Strategies for Avoiding Dangerous to Catastrophic Climate Changes PERSPECTIVE Yangyang Xua,1 and Veerabhadran Ramanathanb,1 PERSPECTIVE Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes PERSPECTIVE Yangyang Xua,1 and Veerabhadran Ramanathanb,1 Edited by Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 11, 2017 (received for review November 9, 2016) The historic Paris Agreement calls for limiting global temperature rise to “well below 2 °C.” Because of uncertainties in emission scenarios, climate, and carbon cycle feedback, we interpret the Paris Agree- ment in terms of three climate risk categories and bring in considerations of low-probability (5%) high- impact (LPHI) warming in addition to the central (∼50% probability) value. The current risk category of dangerous warming is extended to more categories, which are defined by us here as follows: >1.5 °C as dangerous; >3 °C as catastrophic; and >5 °C as unknown, implying beyond catastrophic, including existential threats. With unchecked emissions, the central warming can reach the dangerous level within three decades, with the LPHI warming becoming catastrophic by 2050. We outline a three- lever strategy to limit the central warming below the dangerous level and the LPHI below the cata- strophic level, both in the near term (<2050) and in the long term (2100): the carbon neutral (CN) lever to achieve zero net emissions of CO2, the super pollutant (SP) lever to mitigate short-lived climate pollutants, and the carbon extraction and sequestration (CES) lever to thin the atmospheric CO2 blan- ket. Pulling on both CN and SP levers and bending the emissions curve by 2020 can keep the central warming below dangerous levels. To limit the LPHI warming below dangerous levels, the CES lever must be pulled as well to extract as much as 1 trillion tons of CO2 before 2100 to both limit the preindustrial to 2100 cumulative net CO2 emissions to 2.2 trillion tons and bend the warming curve to a cooling trend. climate change | short-live climate pollutants | carbon capture | mitigation | air pollution The Paris Agreement and its intended nationally published model parameters. The warming esti- determined contributions (INDCs) to reduce emissions matesinthisstudyaccountforthewell-knowngreen- (1) are unprecedented first steps for stabilizing global house gases (GHGs) and various aerosols (Box 1). average warming to well below 2 °C (WB2C). It is gen- ii) Identify the constraints imposed by WB2C and the erally acknowledged that the INDCs must be strength- criteria for meeting WB2C, and thus sharpen the ened significantly to bend the climate emissions curve definition of WB2C. sufficiently and soon enough to limit the warming to iii) Explore the mitigation pathways that are still avail- WB2C (1–3). The overall objectives of this perspective able to meet the WB2C goal. piece are threefold: This perspective article weaves in science per- i) Assess the low-probability (5%) high-impact (LPHI) spectives with societal perspectives since the two are warming outcomes in the absence of a climate inextricably linked. For example, the mitigation path- mitigation policy after accounting for major un- ways we choose are largely motivated by the magni- certainties in: (a) future emission trajectories; tude and rapidity of societal as well as ecosystem (b) physical climate feedback involving water vapor, impacts (4) (Box 2). We recognize that the metrics clouds, and snow/ice albedo; (c) carbon cycle feed- for fully comprehending the societal impacts need back involving biogeochemistry; and (d) aerosol to extend beyond global average warming (5), but radiative forcing. We ensure that the extreme out- global warming is still a valuable and accepted metric comes projected in this study are consistent with for strategizing mitigation options (6). aDepartment of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845; and bScripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 Author contributions: V.R. designed research; Y.X. and V.R. performed research; Y.X. and V.R. analyzed data; and Y.X. and V.R. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This is an open access article distributed under the PNAS license. 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]. This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1618481114/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618481114 PNAS | September 26, 2017 | vol. 114 | no. 39 | 10315–10323 Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 Box 1. The Non-CO2 Climate Pollutants The first category is SLCPs, which include GHGs such as methane, tropospheric ozone, HFCs, and aerosols such as BC, and coe- mitted OC. The lifetimes of these pollutants range from days (BC and OC), to months (tropospheric ozone), to about a decade (methane and HFCs), which explains the term “short-lived” in SLCPs. The second category of non-CO2 climate pollutants includes LLGHGs such as N2O and halocarbons other than HFCs (e.g., CFCs, HCFCs). Our model is forced by IPCC historical forcing of all non- CO2 gases and aerosols. The third category of non-CO2 climate pollutants is cooling aerosols (other than BC and OC) such as sulfates, nitrates, and dust. It should be noted that those cooling aerosols, along with the BC and OC aerosols included under SLCPs, are the major source of air pollution, leading to about 7 million deaths annually (31). Box 1 Figure shows the individual contribution of CO2, SLCPs, and cooling aerosols (other than those included in SLCPs) to the transient warming during the 20th and 21st centuries. All of the warming trends are relative to preindustrial temperatures. By 2015, the warming due to CO2 is about 0.8 °C and that due to SLCPs is about 1.1 °C. The sum of the CO2 and SLCP warming is already close to the Paris Agreement limit of 2 °C by 2015. On the other hand, the aerosols have a cooling (“masking”) effect of about −0.9 °C. When we add the sum of the CO2, SLCPs, and aerosol effects to the warming due to non-CO2 LLGHGs, the estimated warming by 2015 is ∼1.1 °C (black curve in Box 1 Figure), which can be compared with the observed warming of about 1 °C (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). The main inference from Box 1 Figure is that CO2 and SLCPs have exerted comparable warming effects (0.8 °C and 1.1 °C) to the past, while the aerosol masking effect is also comparable in magnitude but of opposite sign, with a cooling of −0.9 °C. 5 Transient Warming as in Baseline-fast due to CO2 only 4 due to aerosol only due to SLCPs only 3 2 1 Warming since 1900 (K) 0 -1 123456 Cumulative Emission since 1750 (Tt CO2) Box 1 Figure. Simulated transient warming (°C) following the baseline-fast scenario, as a function of the cumulative emission of CO2 (x axis; black line). The decades at which each additional trillion tons of CO2 was emitted and the corresponding CO2 concentration are shown at the top. The red, blue, and green lines illustrate transient simulated warming due to CO2, cooling aerosols, and SLCPs only, respectively. Projected Warming in the Absence of Climate Policies model and the climate model simulations have been extensively A convenient place to start the discussion is the projected validated by comparison with observations of atmospheric CO2 warming in the absence of climate policies. Determining this (7) (SI Appendix, Figs. S1 and S2), global mean temperature (8), baseline warming sets the stage for exploring and justifying mit- ocean heat content (box 1 of ref. 7), and sea-level rise (figure 2 of igation pathways. Published future CO2 emission scenarios (1, 4), ref. 9), as well as by comparison with published projections from along with historical emissions, are fed into a carbon cycle model 3D global climate model simulations (9, 10). to estimate the CO2 concentration during the 20th and 21st The projected warming (relative to 1900) at 2050 and 2100 is centuries (SI Appendix, Figs. S1 and S2). The calculated CO2 shown in Fig. 1, under the two baseline emission scenarios in the concentration is used to estimate its climate forcing (SI Appendix, absence of climate policy during the 21st century. The temporal Figs. S4 and S6). For climate forcing due to other atmospheric evolution of CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations, and global av- compositions, we adopted the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- erage temperatures are shown in SI Appendix, Fig. S1. To gen- mate Change (IPCC)-derived historical values (Box 1) and future erate the probability distribution curves shown in Fig. 1 (as well as projections (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). The temperature response is in SI Appendix, Figs. S3, S9, and S10), temperature under each estimated with an energy balance climate model (SI Appendix, scenario is simulated with 1,500 stochastic runs to cover the full range section 1). In a series of published studies (7–10), the carbon cycle of climate sensitivity involving feedback related to water vapor, clouds, 10316 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618481114 Xu and Ramanathan Downloaded by guest on September 24, 2021 AB1.6 0.8 Baseline-fast Baseline-fast 1.4 Baseline-fast (Carbon-cycle Feedback) 0.7 Baseline-fast (Carbon-cycle Feedback) Baseline-default Baseline-default -1 1.2 -1 0.6 Baseline-fast (Aerosol Uncertainty) C) C) o o 1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 Probability density ( Probability density ( 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 12345678910 2050 Warming(oC) 2100 Warming(oC) Fig. 1. Probability density function of projected warming for 2050 (A) and 2100 (B) for the baseline-fast (thick red line) and baseline-default (thick black line) scenarios.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Well Below 2 C: Mitigation Strategies for Avoiding Dangerous To
    PERSPECTIVE Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes PERSPECTIVE Yangyang Xua,1 and Veerabhadran Ramanathanb,1 Edited by Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 11, 2017 (received for review November 9, 2016) The historic Paris Agreement calls for limiting global temperature rise to “well below 2 °C.” Because of uncertainties in emission scenarios, climate, and carbon cycle feedback, we interpret the Paris Agree- ment in terms of three climate risk categories and bring in considerations of low-probability (5%) high- impact (LPHI) warming in addition to the central (∼50% probability) value. The current risk category of dangerous warming is extended to more categories, which are defined by us here as follows: >1.5 °C as dangerous; >3 °C as catastrophic; and >5 °C as unknown, implying beyond catastrophic, including existential threats. With unchecked emissions, the central warming can reach the dangerous level within three decades, with the LPHI warming becoming catastrophic by 2050. We outline a three- lever strategy to limit the central warming below the dangerous level and the LPHI below the cata- strophic level, both in the near term (<2050) and in the long term (2100): the carbon neutral (CN) lever to achieve zero net emissions of CO2, the super pollutant (SP) lever to mitigate short-lived climate pollutants, and the carbon extraction and sequestration (CES) lever to thin the atmospheric CO2 blan- ket. Pulling on both CN and SP levers and bending the emissions curve by 2020 can keep the central warming below dangerous levels. To limit the LPHI warming below dangerous levels, the CES lever must be pulled as well to extract as much as 1 trillion tons of CO2 before 2100 to both limit the preindustrial to 2100 cumulative net CO2 emissions to 2.2 trillion tons and bend the warming curve to a cooling trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Stress and Human Migration: a Global, Georeferenced Review of Empirical Research
    11 11 11 Water stress and human migration: a global, georeferenced review of empirical research Water stress and human migration: a global, georeferenced review of empirical research review and human migration: a global, georeferenced stress Water Migration is a universal and common process and is linked to development in multiple ways. When mainstreamed in broader frameworks, especially in development planning, migration can benefit the communities at both origin and destination. Migrants can and do support their home communities through remittances as well as the knowledge and skills they acquire in the process while they can contribute to the host communities’ development. Yet, the poor and low-skilled face the biggest challenges and form the majority of those subject to migration that happen on involuntary and irregular basis. Access to water meanwhile, provides a basis for human Water stress and human migration: livelihoods. Culture, and progress studies have found that water stress undermines societies’ place-specific livelihood systems and strategies which, in turn, induces new patterns of human a global, georeferenced review migration. Water stress is a circumstance in which the demand for water is not met due to a decline in availability and/or quality and is often discussed in terms of water scarcity, of empirical research drought, long dry spells, irrigation water shortages, changing seasonality and weather extremes. The aim of this review is to synthesize knowledge on the impact of increasing water stress on human migration. ISBN 978-92-5-130426-6 ISSN 1729-0554 FAO 9 789251 304266 I8867EN/1/03.18 11 LAND AND 11 WATER Water stress and DISCUSSION PAPER 11 human migration: 11 Water stress and human migration: a global, a global, georeferenced georeferenced review review of empirical of empirical research Water stress and human migration: a global, georeferenced review of empirical research review and human migration: a global, georeferenced stress Water Migration is a universal and common process and is linked to research development in multiple ways.
    [Show full text]
  • IPCC Reasons for Concern Regarding Climate Change Risks Brian C
    REVIEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED ONLINE: 4 JANUARY 2017 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3179 IPCC reasons for concern regarding climate change risks Brian C. O’Neill1*, Michael Oppenheimer2, Rachel Warren3, Stephane Hallegatte4, Robert E. Kopp5, Hans O. Pörtner6, Robert Scholes7, Joern Birkmann8, Wendy Foden9, Rachel Licker2, Katharine J. Mach10, Phillippe Marbaix11, Michael D. Mastrandrea10, Jeff Price3, Kiyoshi Takahashi12, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele11 and Gary Yohe13 The reasons for concern framework communicates scientific understanding about risks in relation to varying levels of climate change. The framework, now a cornerstone of the IPCC assessments, aggregates global risks into five categories as a function of global mean temperature change. We review the framework’s conceptual basis and the risk judgments made in the most recent IPCC report, confirming those judgments in most cases in the light of more recent literature and identifying their limitations. We point to extensions of the framework that offer complementary climate change metrics to global mean temperature change and better account for possible changes in social and ecological system vulnerability. Further research should systematically evaluate risks under alternative scenarios of future climatic and societal conditions. he reasons for concern (RFC) framework was developed in risk. Perhaps most importantly, we consider improvements in the the IPCC Third Assessment Report (AR3) to inform discus- framework, particularly emphasizing the dynamic nature of expo- Tsions relevant to implementation of Article 2 of the United sure and vulnerability, two key components of risk not sufficiently Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). covered in the current approach. Article 2 presents the Convention’s long-term objective of avoiding “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
    [Show full text]
  • Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
    Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? James Hansen,1,2* Makiko Sato,1,2 Pushker Kharecha,1,2 David Beerling,3 Valerie Masson-Delmotte,4 Mark Pagani,5 Maureen Raymo,6 Dana L. Royer,7 James C. Zachos8 Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice- free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects. Human activities are altering Earth’s atmospheric composition. Concern about global warming due to long-lived human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1) with the objective of stabilizing GHGs in the atmosphere at a level preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2) and others (3) used several “reasons for concern” to estimate that global warming of more than 2-3°C may be dangerous.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities
    Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, SPM4 Coasts and Communities Coordinating Lead Authors: Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Bruce C. Glavovic (New Zealand/South Africa) Lead Authors: Jochen Hinkel (Germany), Roderik van de Wal (Netherlands), Alexandre K. Magnan (France), Amro Abd-Elgawad (Egypt), Rongshuo Cai (China), Miguel Cifuentes-Jara (Costa Rica), Robert M. DeConto (USA), Tuhin Ghosh (India), John Hay (Cook Islands), Federico Isla (Argentina), Ben Marzeion (Germany), Benoit Meyssignac (France), Zita Sebesvari (Hungary/Germany) Contributing Authors: Robbert Biesbroek (Netherlands), Maya K. Buchanan (USA), Ricardo Safra de Campos (UK), Gonéri Le Cozannet (France), Catia Domingues (Australia), Sönke Dangendorf (Germany), Petra Döll (Germany), Virginie K.E. Duvat (France), Tamsin Edwards (UK), Alexey Ekaykin (Russian Federation), Donald Forbes (Canada), James Ford (UK), Miguel D. Fortes (Philippines), Thomas Frederikse (Netherlands), Jean-Pierre Gattuso (France), Robert Kopp (USA), Erwin Lambert (Netherlands), Judy Lawrence (New Zealand), Andrew Mackintosh (New Zealand), Angélique Melet (France), Elizabeth McLeod (USA), Mark Merrifield (USA), Siddharth Narayan (US), Robert J. Nicholls (UK), Fabrice Renaud (UK), Jonathan Simm (UK), AJ Smit (South Africa), Catherine Sutherland (South Africa), Nguyen Minh Tu (Vietnam), Jon Woodruff (USA), Poh Poh Wong (Singapore), Siyuan Xian (USA) Review Editors: Ayako Abe-Ouchi (Japan), Kapil Gupta (India), Joy Pereira (Malaysia) Chapter Scientist: Maya K. Buchanan (USA) This chapter should be cited as: Oppenheimer, M., B.C. Glavovic , J. Hinkel, R. van de Wal, A.K. Magnan, A. Abd-Elgawad, R. Cai, M. Cifuentes-Jara, R.M. DeConto, T. Ghosh, J. Hay, F. Isla, B. Marzeion, B. Meyssignac, and Z. Sebesvari, 2019: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low Lying Islands, Coasts And
    SECOND ORDER DRAFT Chapter 4 IPCC SR Ocean and Cryosphere 1 2 Chapter 4: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities 3 4 Coordinating Lead Authors: Michael Oppenheimer (USA), Bruce Glavovic (New Zealand) 5 6 Lead Authors: Amro Abd-Elgawad (Egypt), Rongshuo Cai (China), Miguel Cifuentes-Jara (Costa Rica), 7 Rob Deconto (USA), Tuhin Ghosh (India), John Hay (Cook Islands), Jochen Hinkel (Germany), Federico 8 Isla (Argentina), Alexandre K. Magnan (France), Ben Marzeion (Germany), Benoit Meyssignac (France), 9 Zita Sebesvari (Hungary), AJ Smit (South Africa), Roderik van de Wal (Netherlands) 10 11 Contributing Authors: Maya Buchanan (USA), Gonéri Le Cozannet (France), Catia Domingues 12 (Australia), Petra Döll (Germany), Virginie K.E. Duvat (France), Tamsin Edwards (UK), Alexey Ekaykin 13 (Russian Federation), Miguel D. Fortes (Philippines), Thomas Frederikse (Netherlands), Jean-Pierre Gattuso 14 (France), Robert Kopp (USA), Erwin Lambert (Netherlands), Andrew Mackintosh (New Zealand), 15 Angélique Melet (France), Elizabeth McLeod (USA), Mark Merrifield (USA), Siddharth Narayan (US), 16 Robert J. Nicholls (UK), Fabrice Renaud (UK), Jonathan Simm (UK), Jon Woodruff (USA), Poh Poh Wong 17 (Singapore), Siyuan Xian (USA) 18 19 Review Editors: Ayako Abe-Ouchi (Japan), Kapil Gupta (India), Joy Pereira (Malaysia) 20 21 Chapter Scientist: Maya Buchanan (USA) 22 23 Date of Draft: 16 November 2018 24 25 Notes: TSU Compiled Version 26 27 28 Table of Contents 29 30 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2 31 4.1 Purpose, Scope, and Structure of the Chapter ...................................................................................... 6 32 4.1.1 Themes of this Chapter ................................................................................................................... 6 33 4.1.2 Advances in this Chapter Beyond AR5 and SR1.5 ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE What Is the SOER 2010?
    THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT STATE AND OUTLOOK 2010 UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE What is the SOER 2010? The European environment — state and outlook 2010 (SOER 2010) is aimed primarily at policymakers, in Europe and beyond, involved with framing and implementing policies that could support environmental improvements in Europe. The information also helps European citizens to better understand, care for and improve Europe's environment. The SOER 2010 'umbrella' includes four key assessments: 1. a set of 13 Europe‑wide thematic assessments of key environmental themes; 2. an exploratory assessment of global megatrends relevant for the European environment; 3. a set of 38 country assessments of the environment in individual European countries; 4. a synthesis — an integrated assessment based on the above assessments and other EEA activities. SOER 2010 assessments Thematic Country assessments assessments Understanding SOER 2010 Country profiles climate change — Synthesis — Mitigating National and climate change regional stories Adapting to Common climate change environmental themes Climate change Biodiversity mitigation Land use Land use Nature protection Soil and biodiversity Marine and Waste coastal environment Consumption Assessment of Freshwater and environment global megatrends Material resources Social Air pollution and waste megatrends Water resources: Technological Each of the above quantity and flows megatrends are assessed by each EEA member Economic Freshwater quality country (32) and megatrends EEA cooperating country (6) Environmental Air pollution megatrends Urban environment Political megatrends All SOER 2010 outputs are available on the SOER 2010 website: www.eea.europa.eu/soer. The website also provides key facts and messages, summaries in non‑technical language and audio‑visuals, as well as media, launch and event information.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation in Central and South America Coastal Areas ∗ Gustavo J
    Regional Studies in Marine Science 29 (2019) 100683 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Regional Studies in Marine Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rsma Climate vulnerability, impacts and adaptation in Central and South America coastal areas ∗ Gustavo J. Nagy a, Ofelia Gutiérrez a, , Ernesto Brugnoli a, José E. Verocai a, Mónica Gómez-Erache a, Alicia Villamizar b, Isabel Olivares c, Ulisses M. Azeiteiro d, Walter Leal Filho e, Nelson Amaro f a Instituto de Ecología y Ciencias Ambientales (IECA), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Igua 4225, CP 11400, Montevideo, Uruguay b Departamento de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Sartenejas, Baruta, Edo. Miranda - Apartado 89000 Cable Unibolivar, Caracas, Venezuela c Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales y Ecológicas, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de los Andes, Núcleo La Hechicera, Av. Alberto Carnevalli, Mérida (5101), Venezuela d Department of Biology & CESAM Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal e Sustainable Development and Climate Change Management (FTZ-NK), Research and Transfer Centre (FTZ-NK), Faculty of Life Science, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Ulmenliet 20, D-21033 Hamburg, Germany f Instituto de Desarrollo Sostenible, Universidad Galileo, 7a. Avenida, calle Dr. Eduardo Suger Cofiño, Zona 10, Ciudad Guatemala, Guatemala h i g h l i g h t s • Central and South America coasts are vulnerable to climate-related hazards. • Sea-level rise and vulnerability pose constraints
    [Show full text]
  • What the IPCC Said
    What the IPCC Said A Citizens’ Guide to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20009 Prepared by: 202.232.7933 | www.islandpress.org Dan L. Perlman and James R. Morris, Brandeis University Right now, over 10,000 representatives from more than 180 countries To help the reader see how the original phrasing has been used and are gathering in Bali, Indonesia, to debate the future of the Earth’s cli- changed, we present the corresponding statements from the IPCC mate, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention beside our version. on Climate Change. In the interests of scientific accuracy, the IPCC presents “best esti- This meeting represents an important opportunity: The world’s mates” for its numerical projections along with uncertainty intervals. To attention is focused on climate change as never before. Al Gore and the help policymakers readily absorb the key understandings presented Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been jointly here, we have removed the uncertainty intervals, which can be seen in awarded a Nobel Prize for their work to raise public awareness of glob- the corresponding original IPCC text. al warming. Even skeptics have now conceded that global warming is a major concern. Paragraph Numbering Perhaps just as importantly, in the past year the IPCC released a new To enable comparisons between our text and the original IPCC global consensus statement called Climate Change 2007. This consensus Summary for Policymakers, we numbered each paragraph in each major establishes without doubt that global warming is being caused by section of the Summary.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List Zapada Glacier As Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act 1
    PETITION TO LIST The western glacier stonefly, Zapada glacier (Baumann & Gaufin, 1971) AS ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Cataract Creek below Grinnell Glacier, the type locality for Zapada glacier. Photograph by Lynn Lazenby, used with permission. Prepared by Sarah Foltz Jordan, Sarina Jepsen, Noah Greenwald, Celeste Mazzacano, and Scott Hoffman Black Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation The Center for Biological Diversity December 30, 2010 Petition to list Zapada glacier as endangered under the Endangered Species Act 1 The Honorable Ken Salazar Secretary of the Interior Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior 1849 C Street N.W. Washington D.C., 20240 Dear Mr. Salazar: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and the Center for Biological Diversity hereby formally petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the western glacier stonefly, Zapada glacier, as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Secretary of the Interior. Petitioners also request that critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(C) and 50 C.F.R. § 424.12, and pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553). We are aware that this petition sets in motion a specific process placing definite response requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and very specific time constraints upon those responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Well Below 2 C: Mitigation Strategies for Avoiding Dangerous
    PERSPECTIVE Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes PERSPECTIVE Yangyang Xua,1 and Veerabhadran Ramanathanb,1 Edited by Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 11, 2017 (received for review November 9, 2016) The historic Paris Agreement calls for limiting global temperature rise to “well below 2 °C.” Because of uncertainties in emission scenarios, climate, and carbon cycle feedback, we interpret the Paris Agree- ment in terms of three climate risk categories and bring in considerations of low-probability (5%) high- impact (LPHI) warming in addition to the central (∼50% probability) value. The current risk category of dangerous warming is extended to more categories, which are defined by us here as follows: >1.5 °C as dangerous; >3 °C as catastrophic; and >5 °C as unknown, implying beyond catastrophic, including existential threats. With unchecked emissions, the central warming can reach the dangerous level within three decades, with the LPHI warming becoming catastrophic by 2050. We outline a three- lever strategy to limit the central warming below the dangerous level and the LPHI below the cata- strophic level, both in the near term (<2050) and in the long term (2100): the carbon neutral (CN) lever to achieve zero net emissions of CO2, the super pollutant (SP) lever to mitigate short-lived climate pollutants, and the carbon extraction and sequestration (CES) lever to thin the atmospheric CO2 blan- ket. Pulling on both CN and SP levers and bending the emissions curve by 2020 can keep the central warming below dangerous levels. To limit the LPHI warming below dangerous levels, the CES lever must be pulled as well to extract as much as 1 trillion tons of CO2 before 2100 to both limit the preindustrial to 2100 cumulative net CO2 emissions to 2.2 trillion tons and bend the warming curve to a cooling trend.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Evolution of the “Key Risks” of Climate Change
    The continuing evolution of the “Key Risks” of climate change Brian O’Neill, University of Denver Drawing on work from: History: Joel Smith, John Schellnhuber, Rik Leemans IPCC AR5: Michael Oppenheimer, Rachel Warren, Joern Birkmann, Stephane Hallegatte, Bob Kopp, Rachel Licker, Katie Mach, Phillippe Marbaix, Michael Mastrandrea, Hans Poertner, Bob Scholes, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Jeff Price, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Gary Yohe IPCC AR6: Rachel Warren, Matthias Garschagen, Alex Magnan, Maarten Van Aalst, Zelina Ibrahim Special Reports: Rachel Warren, Kate Calvin, Alex Magnan GTAP Annual Meeting, Warsaw, 19 June 2019 Emissions are rising Thanks to: O. Edenhofer Reaching the 2oC or 1.5oC Paris goals INDCs strengthen mitigation action … … but are by far not enough to close mitigation gap. Luderer et al. (2018) Residual fossil CO emissions Thanks to: in 1.5–2oC pathways. Nature Climate Change O. Edenhofer Definitions: Key Risk (AR5, AR6) “A key risk is defined as a potentially severe risk relevant to the interpretation of ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ (DAI), in the terminology of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Article 2, meriting particular attention by policy makers in that context. …” Key Risks and Reasons for Concern Key Risks Reasons for Concern Burning Embers By region and by sector: Risks to/associated with: Loss of biodiversity Loss of endemic species 1. Unique and threatened Reduced economic systems growth 2. Extreme weather events Coastal damage from SLR 3. Distribution of impacts Loss of coral reefs 4. Global aggregate Mortality/morbidity from impacts Global Mean Warming Mean Global extreme heat 5. Large-scale singular 1 2 3 4 5 Reduced food security events RFCs Increased violent conflict Etc.
    [Show full text]