The New Normal - Beyond Doom

[WFJ]

Thanks. That was my vague understanding, that a "refugee" is specifically someone displaced by ±political factors.

Do people displaced by natural disasters have any special rights under current laws, or are they expected to go back eventually? Because that expectation may not be realistic in cases of desertification, erosion etc.

Isn't the distinction that refugees have to cross a border. Rightly or wrongly it's currently the responsibility of states to deal with people whose homes are uninhabitable within their own borders.

I don’t think that’s correct. International law (eg the 1951 Refugee Convention) defines a refugee as someone who is fleeing persecution.

People who are fleeing natural disasters are known as ‘displaced persons’. There isn’t a legal obligation to help them, though many states do for humanitarian motives. One reason for the lack of international law is that it has hitherto been very rare for people to be forced to travel abroad to escape a natural disaster. The volcano that destroyed much of Montserrat is one example, but I can’t think of others. As mentioned upthread, modern famines are best understood as cases of persecution rather than solely being natural disasters.

I agree. That is what i wrote (see bold), or at least meant to, maybe it was not clear. Aid and accommodation in these cases is considered an internal issue, although other states may provide funds to help.

[Woodchopper]

Isn't the distinction that refugees have to cross a border. Rightly or wrongly it's currently the responsibility of states to deal with people whose homes are uninhabitable within their own borders.

I don’t think that’s correct. International law (eg the 1951 Refugee Convention) defines a refugee as someone who is fleeing persecution.

People who are fleeing natural disasters are known as ‘displaced persons’. There isn’t a legal obligation to help them, though many states do for humanitarian motives. One reason for the lack of international law is that it has hitherto been very rare for people to be forced to travel abroad to escape a natural disaster. The volcano that destroyed much of Montserrat is one example, but I can’t think of others. As mentioned upthread, modern famines are best understood as cases of persecution rather than solely being natural disasters.

I agree. That is what i wrote (see bold), or at least meant to, maybe it was not clear. Aid and accommodation in these cases is considered an internal issue, although other states may provide funds to help.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood, my fault.

[Millennie Al]

2m by 2100 is well within the 95% CIs of the high-emissions scenario of AR6. That's within the lifespan of infrastructure being built and kids being born today, so I don't think it's too far off to be worth thinking about. See e.g. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa ... te-science

From that link:

The new report projects that GMSL would rise by 0.38m, with a likely range of 0.28-0.55m, under SSP1-1.9 and 0.77m, with a range of 0.63-1.01m, under SSP5-8.5 by 2100, as compared to the baseline period of 1995-2014.

How is that consistent with 2m?

[Bird on a Fire]

The "likely range" is narrower than 95% CIs. But you can see the figures just below there.

[Millennie Al]

The "likely range" is narrower than 95% CIs. But you can see the figures just below there.

Yes, I can. That's the 95% for SSP5-8.5, which is itself a highly unlikely scenario. So the 2m is at the unlikely edge of an implausible scenario - very much "too far off to be worth thinking about."

[Millennie Al]

As for being childless, it's worth pointing out that climate anxiety is putting off about 40% of young people from having kids https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-crisis (plus it keeps your carbon footprint finite)

That story is about a poll conducted by Avaaz which is an organisation dedicated to campaigning on issues such as climate change.

The survey was funded by Avaaz but carried out by academics. You can read about it here: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... INDEX=TRUE

Ok. Only paid for by them. I hope that's not the version that the article is based on. It is prominently watermarked "Preprint not peer reviewed" and has "<INSERT FIG 1 HERE>" and similar in several places.

Even with the most scrupulously unbiased researchers, data obtained by asking people for their opinion is mostly worthless. Surveys done by or for those with a cause to support are completely worthless.

I disagree in general.
[/quote]

I think the fact that people reported their religion as "Jedi" on offician censuses shows that even the most serious questions are not reliably answered. And when asking for something as vague as an opinion, the opinion can be very easily influenced by the form of the question, prior questions, and the general context.

[Bird on a Fire]

I think the fact that people reported their religion as "Jedi" on offician censuses shows that even the most serious questions are not reliably answered.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[dyqik]

I think the fact that people reported their religion as "Jedi" on offician censuses shows that even the most serious questions are not reliably answered.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In any case, when most of the population is effectively areligious, a question asking you to state your religion isn't a particularly serious question.

[Grumble]

I think the fact that people reported their religion as "Jedi" on offician censuses shows that even the most serious questions are not reliably answered.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

In any case, when most of the population is effectively areligious, a question asking you to state your religion isn't a particularly serious question.

Yes, I think a question about religion being answered with a joke is something that people analysing census responses in 2101 will probably find very interesting.

[Stephanie]

That story is about a poll conducted by Avaaz which is an organisation dedicated to campaigning on issues such as climate change.

The survey was funded by Avaaz but carried out by academics. You can read about it here: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.p ... INDEX=TRUE

Ok. Only paid for by them. I hope that's not the version that the article is based on. It is prominently watermarked "Preprint not peer reviewed" and has "<INSERT FIG 1 HERE>" and similar in several places.

Even with the most scrupulously unbiased researchers, data obtained by asking people for their opinion is mostly worthless. Surveys done by or for those with a cause to support are completely worthless.

I disagree in general.

I think the fact that people reported their religion as "Jedi" on offician censuses shows that even the most serious questions are not reliably answered. And when asking for something as vague as an opinion, the opinion can be very easily influenced by the form of the question, prior questions, and the general context.

But academics who study survey data are presumably well aware of this - "Are you measuring an opinion or creating one?", context, question order, etc, is pretty much the basic stuff you have to learn in undergrad psychology before you go off doing experiments and surveys.

[Bird on a Fire]

I posted this in the cost of living thread, but droughts are behind current price increases in durum wheat, oilseeds and coffee apparently.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -is-rising

[Bird on a Fire]

As for economic impacts, WG2's part of AR6 isn't out yet - but hopefully in a few weeks. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assess ... -group-ii/

They've got a lot more data to go on now. It'll be an important read.

It's out today. As a reminder, there's three IPCC working groups. WG1 does the physical science stuff, which is mostly pretty solid now. WG2 does socio-economic aspects.

I've not had time to read it yet, but here's the Graun's summary:

In what some scientists termed “the bleakest warning yet”, the summary report from the global authority on climate science says droughts, floods, heatwaves and other extreme weather are accelerating and wreaking increasing damage.

Allowing global temperatures to increase by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as looks likely on current trends in greenhouse gas emissions, would result in some “irreversible” impacts. These include the melting of ice caps and glaciers, and a cascading effect whereby wildfires, the die-off of trees, the drying of peatlands and the thawing of permafrost release additional carbon emissions, amplifying the warming further.

The report says:

Everywhere is affected, with no inhabited region escaping dire impacts from rising temperatures and increasingly extreme weather.

About half the global population – between 3.3 billion and 3.6 billion people – live in areas “highly vulnerable” to climate change.

Millions of people face food and water shortages owing to climate change, even at current levels of heating.

Mass die-offs of species, from trees to corals, are already under way.

1.5C above pre-industrial levels constitutes a “critical level” beyond which the impacts of the climate crisis accelerate strongly and some become irreversible.

Coastal areas around the globe, and small, low-lying islands, face inundation at temperature rises of more than 1.5C.

Key ecosystems are losing their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, turning them from carbon sinks to carbon sources.

Some countries have agreed to conserve 30% of the Earth’s land, but conserving half may be necessary to restore the ability of natural ecosystems to cope with the damage wreaked on them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -breakdown

So, in other words, the inescapable consequences of baked-in warming from historical emissions are already very serious, and we are way, way behind where we need to be in terms of adaptation.

Those consequences will be much, much worse if we don't rapidly reduce emissions and agree not to burn the overwhelming majority of fossil fuels. The remaining Paris target of 2°C seems to be a very important threshold, and there is still time to avoid crossing it with rapid, concerted effort.

It seems to me that decarbonisation is likely one of the cheapest forms of adaptation available. But it'll be an important read.

[Bird on a Fire]

Climate change is causing greater impacts than expected at lower temperatures than anticipated, disrupting natural systems and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world, according to the latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The new report found that droughts and heat waves are killing off trees and corals; sea level rise is forcing people in vulnerable areas to leave their homes; and extreme conditions may be increasing the likelihood of violent conflict. If warming is not halted soon, and it continues, as many as half the species living on land could become extinct, malnutrition in parts of the world will likely become widespread, and extreme weather events will become increasingly common.

The poor, the very young and very old, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous peoples are at most risk. And while measures to limit the impact of climate change do exist, the only truly meaningful step is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... -un-report

[Bird on a Fire]

I don't have time to do a fisk on your post, but as far as I recall any prediction that in my lifetime climate change will result in economic collapse or mass starvation are way beyond what I recall reading in the IPCC reports and other modelling produced by scientists.

At 2°C or higher of warming, human food security risks due to climate change will be more severe, leading to nutrient deficiencies and malnutrition, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, and small island states. Furthermore, as temperatures continue to climb, climate change impacts and risks are likely to become “increasingly complex and more difficult to manage,” with multiple hazards—from droughts and wildfires to sea-level rise and floods—occurring simultaneously.

And it's already begun:

From 2010 to 2020, human deaths from floods, droughts, and storms were 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability. Flood and drought-related food insecurity and malnutrition have increased in Africa and Central and South America.

Climate and weather extremes are increasingly driving displacement of populations in some regions; small island states threatened by rising seas are disproportionately affected. The loss of ecosystem services has especially severe effects on those who rely directly on them to meet basic needs, including Indigenous peoples.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... -un-report

[Bird on a Fire]

The BBC meanwhile have gone with

1- Things are way worse than we thought

From the melting of the Greenland ice sheet to the destruction of coral reefs, climate related impacts are hitting the world at the high end of what modellers once expected. And much more quickly than previously assessed by the IPCC.

Right now, as the new report makes clear, around 40% of the world's population is "highly vulnerable" to the impacts of climate change.

But the burden is falling mainly on those who did the least to cause the problem.

"For Africa around 30% of all the maize growing areas will go out of production, for beans it's around 50% on the current emissions trajectory," said Patrick Verkooijen, CEO of the Global Center on Adaptation, which assists governments and the private sector in pushing for large scale adaptation solutions.

"So there are certain parts of the world, particularly in Africa, which will become uninhabitable."

"And time is running out, as the IPCC report clearly says, to stop the forces driving this new climate apartheid," he told BBC News.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60541816

[IvanV]

And it's already begun:

From 2010 to 2020, human deaths from floods, droughts, and storms were 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to regions with very low vulnerability. Flood and drought-related food insecurity and malnutrition have increased in Africa and Central and South America.

Climate and weather extremes are increasingly driving displacement of populations in some regions; small island states threatened by rising seas are disproportionately affected. The loss of ecosystem services has especially severe effects on those who rely directly on them to meet basic needs, including Indigenous peoples.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... -un-report

That sounds like a rather cherry-picked number. It is easy to define "vulnerable" areas as those that were badly hit by natural disasters in the last decade.

The overall trend in deaths from natural disasters is generally down. Decadal deaths from natural disasters
It is usual to present this decadally, because there are individual incidents with sub-annual frequency that have deaths sevaral times the annual average. Such events occurred in 2008 and 2010 for example.

A major reason for the downward trend is people doing sensible things to protect themselves. Clearly they are better able to do when they are wealthier. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of such measures even in places like the Philippines, the world's most hurricane-struck nation, shows that even less developed places can do a lot to protect themselves without the need for large amounts of money. In the case of famine and drought, we now have a clearer understanding that politics and war are the main impediment to protecting people from those risks.

These messages about how extreme weather events are getting worse or more common keep on coming out. But actually it is very hard to demonstrate it with any kind of statistical rigour. The one thing that is indubitable is that places are experiencing high temperatures more often. Everything else is much harder to show.

[Bird on a Fire]

These messages about how extreme weather events are getting worse or more common keep on coming out. But actually it is very hard to demonstrate it with any kind of statistical rigour.

Mate, you do know what the IPCC is, right?

[Bird on a Fire]

Less sarkily, here it is in the summary for policymakers:

SPM.B.2.4 Regions and people with considerable development constraints have high vulnerability to climatic
hazards (high confidence). Global hotspots of high human vulnerability are found particularly in West-,
Central- and East Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, Small Island Developing States and the
Arctic (high confidence). Vulnerability is higher in locations with poverty, governance challenges and limited
access to basic services and resources, violent conflict and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods (e.g.,
smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fishing communities) (high confidence). Between 2010-2020, human
mortality from floods, droughts and storms was 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions, compared to
regions with very low vulnerability (high confidence). Vulnerability at different spatial levels is exacerbated
by inequity and marginalization linked to gender, ethnicity, low income or combinations thereof (high
confidence), especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high confidence). Present
development challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by historical and ongoing patterns of
inequity such as colonialism, especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities (high
confidence). {4.2, 5.12, 6.2, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, Box 7.1, 8.2, 8.3, Box 8.4, Figure 8.6, Box 9.1, 9.4, 9.7, 9.9, 10.3,
10.4, 10.6, 12.3, 12.5, Box 13.2, 14.4, 15.3, 15.6, 16.2, CCP6.2, CCP7.4}

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assess ... -group-ii/

[Bird on a Fire]

I've not read the full report yet, but Carbon Brief have and they've dug up some further info on the sources for you, Ivan:

The chapter assesses the latest literature on how multi-dimensional poverty and human vulnerability are measured and it examines how different indexes rank “global vulnerability hotspots”.

The report states with high confidence that average mortality from floods, drought and storms over the past decade was 15-times higher for “very highly vulnerable” regions and countries – including Mozambique, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Haiti – versus regions and countries ranked “very low” on the scale of vulnerability, such as the UK, Australia, Canada and Sweden. According to studies the report assessed, 11-times more people are adversely affected by a hazard event in “very highly vulnerable” regions and countries, compared to countries with very low vulnerability.

A third of all the evidence the IPCC assessed on livelihood impacts came from just three countries – India, Nepal and Bangladesh, “indicating accumulating experience with livelihood impacts in South Asia”. While evidence of impacts was more limited in literature assessed from Central Asia and the Caribbean, its weight “is still robust”, the authors note. Of all industrialised nations, “there is highest confidence that climate change has impacted livelihood resources in the US”.

According to additional assessments, approximately 3.6 billion people live in low and lower middle-income countries, “which are most vulnerable and disproportionally [sic] bear the human costs of disasters due to extreme weather events and hazards”.

The report states with high confidence that the most vulnerable regions in the world include east, central and west Africa, south Asia, Micronesia and Melanesia and Central America. It estimates that 1.6 to 3.3 billion people are living in countries classified as very highly or highly vulnerable, while 0.8 to 2 billion people reside in regions classified as least vulnerable. The authors add:

“Recent studies suggest that the total population of all countries classified as most highly vulnerable is projected to grow significantly.”

Of all climate hazards, warming trends and drought “pose greatest risks to the widest array of livelihood resources” the report says, given that they are “particularly detrimental” to human and crop health and, therefore, to long-term livelihood security and well-being.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa ... -the-world

[Bird on a Fire]

Of course, this is just echoing the point that lpm made earlier, about poverty being the root cause of natural disasters (which I'd probably amend to "exacerbates").

However, they also note that climate disasters increase poverty:

The report highlights new evidence that shows that the risk of “extreme impoverishment” increases for low-income communities experiencing back-to-back climatic events, without time to recover. A “key risk for the poor” is “shocks to specific livelihood assets”, such as land and housing, with the urban and rural landless poor struggling to rebuild them after disasters.

Evidence also exists that climate change impacts drive recurrent poverty and force the poor into persistent extreme poverty traps. This is especially true when wages remain stagnant, costs of living, such as food and healthcare, rise, mobility is restricted and when people face ethnic or social discrimination or conflict.

Even under medium warming scenarios, there is high agreement and enough evidence to suggest that climate risks to poverty “would become severe if vulnerability is high and adaptation is low.”

So - and here's that pesky intersectionality popping up again - tackling the climate crisis is a poverty-reduction measure.

[IvanV]

Less sarkily, here it is in the summary for policymakers:
...

OK, I misread what the claim was. The claim is that vulnerable areas have 15 times the death rate of non-vulnerable areas. Not that the weather-realted death rate in those areas is 15 times higher than the previous decade.

The actual claim can easily be true regardless of changes in weather.

[Bird on a Fire]

Less sarkily, here it is in the summary for policymakers:
...

OK, I misread what the claim was. The claim is that vulnerable areas have 15 times the death rate of non-vulnerable areas. Not that the weather-realted death rate in those areas is 15 times higher than the previous decade.

The actual claim can easily be true regardless of changes in weather.

Indeed. The IPCC doesn't really do cherry-picking or lack of rigour.

There is actually plenty of evidence that weather is changing for the worse because of climate change, but that's from Working Group 1 (physical science); this is WG2 who do "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," based on WG 1's modelling.

[Bird on a Fire]

In terms of economic damage, this is from Carbon Brief's summary of the bit about cities:

The report has high confidence that climate change will cause sea levels to rise and increase the severity and frequency of tropical cyclone storm surges, driving higher levels of risk coastal flooding.

By 2050, more than a billion people located in low-lying cities and settlements will be at risk from “coastal-specific climate hazards”, the report says with high confidence. However, it notes that the amount of damage caused will be dependent on future warming levels and socioeconomic scenarios.

Between $7-14tn of coastal infrastructure assets will be exposed by 2100, according to the report – affecting sectors including transportation, housing, power production and “information technology”.

For example, the report notes that even if warming is limited to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, the number of airports at risk of storm surge flooding could rise from 269 to 338. It adds that the airports affected are disproportionately busy and currently account for up to 20% of the world’s passenger routes.

Population growth will also be a key driver of increasing flood risk – as the report is virtually certain that “economic development is disproportionately concentrated in and around coastal cities and settlements”.

One projection, for example, says that urban land will expand by 0.6-1.3m km2 between 2015-50. Even without accounting for the impacts of climate change, this means that the urban land exposed to floods and droughts will increase by more than 2.5 times between 2000 and 2030.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa ... -the-world

Is $7-14tn a lot? That's about 8-18% of global GDP exposed just in terms of infrastructure assets and coastal flooding. Sounds like insurance will be going up a bit. There would probably be some knock-on effects from damaging infrastructure too.

[Bird on a Fire]

On displacements and violent conflict:

Meanwhile, the authors say there is high confidence that “climate hazards are a growing driver of involuntary migration and displacement and are a contributing factor to violent conflict”. Extreme weather events can drive migration in two ways, the report says – for example, directly through a cyclone destroying a house, or, for example, indirectly from long-term losses due to drought.

Most climate-related migration occurs within national boundaries, according to the report, which says that an average of 20 million people per year have been displaced internally by weather-related extremes since 2008. It adds that storms and floods rank as the most common drivers of displacement.

As the planet warms, migration is likely to increase, the report finds. For example, for every 1C of extra warming, the global risk of involuntary displacement due to flooding increases by 50%.

In the latter half of this century, current emissions pathways will put hundreds of millions of people at risk of displacement due to hazards including rising sea levels, floods, tropical cyclones, droughts, extreme heat and wildfire, according to the report. However, it adds that numbers are strongly dependent on socioeconomic conditions.

For example, displacement in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia by 2050 could vary between 31-143 million people depending on future emissions and socioeconomic development trajectories.

Even 30 million people is quite a lot, I think.

Climate change is also expected to reduce water availability. Existing literature linking water insecurity to conflict is limited, but the report says “the large majority acknowledges” that limited water availability can “exacerbate tensions”. For example, in Syria, drought has aggravated existing water and agricultural insecurity – but the report says that “whether drought caused civil unrest in Syria remains highly debated”.

The report cites analysis which suggests that 2C warming would increase the probability of “conflict risks” by 13%, due to reduced food and water security, and disruption to lives and livelihoods. This instability can lead to “civil unrest” in some regions, which is often linked to an increase in violence against women, girls and vulnerable groups, the report warns.

The report concludes that “climate-related migration outcomes are diverse”, adding that future migration and displacement patterns will depend on “not only on the physical impacts of climate change, but also on future policies and planning at all scales of governance”.

So, yes. Part of adaptation will be developing policies - hopefully humane ones - that can deal with tens of millions of displaced people in the next few decades.

[Bird on a Fire]

Adaptation is going badly, btw, and we don't even know what we should be doing:

Nevertheless, the report still emphasises that, overall, “the extent of adaptation-related responses globally has been low”. The most common actions are changes to people’s behaviour in Africa and Asia in response to drought, flooding and rainfall, as well as local governments protecting infrastructure and services, such as water supplies.

The report also concludes with high confidence that, barring some measures to deal with flooding and extreme heat, there is “negligible evidence that existing responses are adequate to reduce climate risk”. Furthermore, “major knowledge gaps persist in modelling and analysis” of climate adaptation.

One guiding principle the authors highlight should be justice:

While previous IPCC reports did not explicitly discuss climate justice in their adaptation chapters, this one explicitly shows “how better outcomes are obtained by choosing just ones”. It states with high confidence that adaptation goals at the international, national and local levels require “engaging with the concepts of equity, justice and effectiveness”.

We also need to mainstream adaptation in law and finance:

The report also states that “mainstreaming” adaptation into existing governance can support transformative adaptation and expand the “solution space” – defined as “the space within which opportunities and constraints determine why, how, when and who adapts to climate risks”. One example is urban planners considering adaptation in their city plans from the outset.

Finance is also a key issue identified in the report, highlighted as a “crucial enabling condition and shaper of the solution space”. It notes that the potential return on investment is large, suggesting that a $1.8tn investment in measures including early warning systems, global mangrove protection and climate-resilient infrastructure would yield $7.1tn in benefits.

However, the report also repeats a common refrain, which came to a head at the recent COP26 summit in Glasgow, that “the current public and private financial flows to adaptation are much smaller than needed”. It states with high confidence that just 4-8% of climate finance has gone to adaptation efforts in recent years.

Unfortunately, though, some risks are too great to adapt to, especially if we fail to meet the Paris targets:

Chapter 2 of the report – which addresses terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems – gives a sense of the magnitude of some of these unadaptable limits, stating:

“In general, adaptation measures can substantially reduce the adverse impacts of 1-2C of global temperature rise, but beyond this losses will increase, including species extinctions and changes, such as major biome shifts which cannot be reversed on human timescales.”.

Nature-based solutions – such as coral reefs, mangroves and marshes, all of which can help adaptation efforts – will likely reach hard limits of their own as the planet warms beyond 1.5C, the report says.

Examples of soft limits to adaptation include difficulty preparing for coastal floods in Samoa due to financial, physical and technological constraints, and small-scale farmers in Bangladesh struggling to adapt to riverbank erosion while wealthier farmers have the money to implement responses.

Hard limits include springs running dry in Nepalese farming communities and land scarcity in parts of Africa when organic cotton production is introduced to support more sustainable livelihoods.

The residual risks identified are stark, including “collapse of economies and livelihoods and reduced habitability of islands” and poorer households in Africa “becoming trapped in cycles of poverty”, the report says.

Uh-oh. That sounds bad. Collapse of economies