Sandberg considers things like inducing intolerance to red meat (since livestock farming and feeding accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emission),  selecting smaller embryos (since smaller humans would reduce the amount of energy we each need to consume) and also hormone therapy  (which could make us more altruistic, empathetic and  sensitive to the suffering of animals and other people caused by climate change).

Like the authors themselves, I am skeptical that any of the green modifications proposed by Sandberg will ever take effect. In order to make a significant difference – for example to GHG emissions reduction,  a  large proportion of the global population would need to volunteer or be willing to participate in one (or more) of these human engineering ideas. Even if a few hundred people agree to volunteer and undergo medical treatment to induce intolerance to red meat, for example, I doubt that this could translate to any large reduction in GHG emissions. And since there are a large number of people who do not believe in climate change or are skeptical about it (despite anthropogenic activities and greenhouse gas generation being formally recognized as influencing climate change at the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) I doubt that there would ever be enough people who would be will be thrilled by the idea of, or be willing to participate in, green human enhancement.  In the unlikely event that there were enough people, is human engineering really the ‘safer’ option? Treating people with hormones could create other serious health implications and side-effects (save to mention the financial costs of administering the drug to a large number of people). Furthermore, if legislation made human engineering compulsory, and not a voluntary option (meaning that there could potentially be enough people enrolled to make a considerable difference to the environment) it goes without warrant that the human rights, ethics committees as well as several religious communities would  be strongly opposed to any such measures.

Sandberg also suggests that geoengineering options are ‘problematic’; but some, such as biochar and afforestation are reasonably affordable, moderately effective (see Figure 1 IGBP) and, in my view, safer than some of the human engineering ideas they propose. Sandberg goes on to question “How would one test geoengineering?” if there is only one Earth – but some of the impacts can and have been modeled, and thus the potential impacts can be better understood (e.g. afforestation and space reflectors).

The authors also propose another human engineering idea which is related to a much more noteworthy point.  They suggest reducing birthrates by making people smarter. Although I am still against their idea of human engineering to make people smarter, I do think that this idea in particular raises another valid and somewhat obvious point. -High population numbers trigger high demand for goods and services and thus high production rates, increased industrialization and thus high emissions levels. Thus, by curbing natural population growth rates, to reduce consumption and thereby emissions, we could implement – with relative ease (e.g. massive family planning campaigns, increased access to contraceptives, and legislating number of children per household etc) a realistic strategy to mitigate the effects of global warming.

To be clear – I recognize that Sandberg is merely suggesting we consider human engineering as a way of tackling climate change and I also recognize that Sandberg’s article is still to be published in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment – and this may offer some more insight into their ideas.   My argument is simply that human engineering will not be anything more than an idea and/ or an unlikely reality in the distant future. If we are considering options, perhaps we should rather focus on geoengineering ideas, which -although controversial – offer more potential and more immediate effects, on a large enough scale, to mitigate the effects of climate change; it is the lesser – more effective- of the two evils being considered. And, if geoengineering is also too controversial and does not deliver, then perhaps what we can do is to focus on curbing natural population growth rates and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Personally, I do not think that the transition towards clean energy could have occurred without some set-backs and disappointments. This “trial-and-error” phase is perhaps illustrated with reference to February 2010, when plans for Koebergs’ Pebble Bed Modular Reactor were temporarily shelved. This was at the expense of (at least) R8 billion of mostly taxpayers’ money. Some estimates suggest that the plant would have had an output potential of 80 MW of electricity (and 200MW of heat) which is only a fraction (< 1 % – see calculation 1 below) of our present energy needs. In retrospect, critics would not be wrong to argue that perhaps this money would have been better spent on energy provision for South Africa’s poorest. For example, this money could have easily covered the expense of solar water geysers for thousands of households (and possibly even every household in South Africa’s informal settlements – see calculation 2 below). In light of this, one might wonder if perhaps more judicious scoping or decisive allocation of finances that are going towards nuclear renewable options in South Africa is required­.

I think that this void left by the inadequacies of the nuclear sector has, for the large part, been filled. It would seem as if the Western Cape began to concentrate on the growth of its’ wind energy sectors; in addition to the current wind farms  (Darling and Klipheuwel  which are already linked to the national electricity grid) in the near future, the Sere wind farm could provide an additional 100MW of clean energy. Similarly, The Eastern Cape has also shown promising potential to generate significant amounts of wind energy. For example, the construction of the Coega Wind Farm in Port Elizabeth (projected to have a total power capacity of 57.5 MW) began in May 2010 and the province has also been earmarked for the construction of at least four new wind energy projects. In December 2011, bidders for renewable wind projects included; The MetroWind Van Stadens Wind Farm (potentially, 26.19MW), Red Cap Kouga Wind Farm near Oyster Bay (77.60MW), Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm (133.86MW) and Cookhouse Wind Farm (135MW). If these projects are in fact implemented, this would be an additional source of clean energy (370MW which is >1% our current energy consumption).

South Africa has also made plans to make use good use of the large number of sunny days that the country receives per year. Based on the amount of annual solar irradiation -the Northern Cape in particular appears to be an ideal location for the construction of solar farms. Eskom has been assessing a large number of applications for its Upington pilot plant (these have a potential capacity of at least 600MW made up of the 100MW from the Concentrated Solar Power demonstration plant and the 500MW from a commercial plant). This will be in convenient proximity to both national and main roads and existing transmission which means there will be minimal line loss. There is even potential for a (100MW) solar plant in Pofadder (Northern Cape) and a (28MW) Soutpan Solar Park in Limpopo. This rapid “rush for renewables” in recent years has in fact left me wondering which renewable energy– wind or solar – will dominate in South Africa?

Overall, I think that South Africa’s strong commitment to developing infrastructure in the solar and wind energy sectors outweigh the “teething problems”  experienced in implementing nuclear energy. Although not currently attracting much of the lime light, one should not forget that there is also potential for biogas technology and our hydroelectric sectors to develop in coming years.  Reflecting on our road from Copenhagen, if one had to weigh things out, I think South Africa has shown a promising start. Over the next few years – if the road ahead becomes even ‘greener’ – renewable energy could provide a large proportion of our energy needs. In such a case South Africa would be able to considerably reduce emissions by 2025 and could very easily fulfil the commitments made at Copenhagen.

Calculation 1: In Jan -2012, consumption reported to be 19 676 GWh   So 19 676 GWh*12 months =236 112 in a year hence, 19 676 GWh/ (365days*24hrs) = 26.95 GW. Thus (0.08 GW/26.95 GW) * 100 = 0.29 <<<1%

Calculation 2: Over 2,300 houses will be equipped with solar water heaters in Kuyasa, which will cost about 12 million South African Rand (ZAR) = ZAR 5217 / household fitted with SW geyser  And According to Statistics SA, as of mid-2009, there are more than 2,700 informal settlements consisting of about 1.2 million households. Hence, 1.2 million Households* ZAR 5217 = 5.217 billion i.e. <<< R8, 67 billion

However, in due course, large-scale sanitation systems were installed in Edinburgh, and countless other cities, ensuring access to clean water and preventing water-borne diseases from ravaging the populace. A mandatory societal progression which we dare not contemplate life without its implementation.

Now to the analogy of this story with climate change: on Earth, fossil fuels are being burned, producing CO₂, which can be seen as a form of ‘human waste’. Just as the chamber pots were being emptied onto the public streets, so CO₂ is being dumped into the public space – our homogenous atmosphere. Human waste running freely on the streets had consequences – infection, sickness, death – and so too will increasing CO₂ levels have consequences – rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, sea level rise, etc. – which in turn result in serious social implications. The sanitation crisis of 18^th Century Britain forced the authorities into action, which produced a sewage system that remedied the situation. In round numbers, it is estimated that the Scottish government of the time had to spend 1% of its economy on the implementation of this system. It is also estimated that transferring our dependence onto clean (i.e. renewable) energy would cost current governments a similar figure. So it comes down to sacrificing a [relatively] large capital investment now, in order to minimize a serious and irreversible crisis that future generations will face. For many however, this does not seem to be priority; I wonder if people felt the same way about sanitation in the 18^th Century? Or is it just because the effects of water-borne disease were imminent and affected present generations in real time, and climate change is not yet felt in real time, so to speak, and won’t really affect the present generation as much as it will future ones?

What does the anti-renewable-energy brigade have to say about this? Well, they seem to be ranting about a new study which shows that wind turbines actually increase local temperatures by approximately three-quarters of a degree Celcius by helping mix the surface layer of air. They don’t seem to understand that this just changes the distribution of heat within the atmosphere, not the actual heat content of the atmosphere. The latter is what increasing CO₂ levels changes. Not to mention that human-driven local changes in temperature are common (consider urban heat islands) and are not a proponent in climate change. So once again, the anti-renewable-energy brigade just focuses on the part of the study that aims to further their purpose, disregarding the fact that it’s really of no global or even regional significance.

Alley’s analogy is not without its flaws: the source of human waste is never addressed (the waste itself just gets redirected and treated), whereas switching to renewable energy deals with reducing the source of CO₂ rather than redirecting emissions. However, trivial discrepancies in the analogy are not worth getting worked-up about: the real issue is that there is a problem, which has, and will increasingly have, serious implications, and this problem needs to be addressed. It’s been done in the past, so why can’t it be done now?

frontier |ˌfrənˈti(ə)r|

noun

the extreme limit of understanding or achievement in a particular area

The impacts of climate change pile up in the extremes. This is the opening line in the IPCC video “In Harm’s Way” for the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fq8P9RhEpiQ. There is naturally a great desire to understand extreme events and although many scientists have given causality to human activities, it is lately with the pile up that many more are ‘converting’ to the climate change acceptance frame of mind. This video also found it’s way onto the 350.org’s campaign to “Connect the Dots” between extreme weather and climate change. There is a growing activist movement to educate about the science and significance of climate change.  The video for Connect the Dots itself gives a similar message: the increase in extreme weather events are strongly a result of human activity and, they are all connected to each other and the climate.  http://youtu.be/pMNMvaBC4_U

The debate used be whether climate change could be human induced. In contemporary times the debate is more along the lines of, yes climate change can be human induced, but by how much is it? How badly is the climate being affected and to what extent is this altering our weather patterns? Climate is the canvas upon which weather paints its story. The intensification of weather extremes is shaking people to look at the science; which is there but more work is still needed. Now that more people want to know, the role of the scientist has grown to educator. Another question then, is how do you teach climate change? Well I guess these online videos and images are one way, but that is a discussion for another time and place.

 Figure 1. Infographic of recent extreme events around the world. (350.org)

Min et al. (2011) in the journal Nature, showed that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gasses have contributed to an intensification of heavy rainfall events across most of the Northern Hemisphere.  Pall et al. (2011, a few pages after Min et al., 2011) gave insight into the human influence in global warming with impacts on flooding via precipitation and river-flow alteration. Both of these research letters in the same journal show the recent and growing evidence of human influence on rainfall. A scary result is that the models used have shown to underestimate the change in rainfall and thus precipitation related extreme events may become more intense than predictions allow.

Figure 2. “Time series of five-year mean area-averaged PI anomalies over Northern Hemisphere land during 1951–99. a, b, Model simulations with anthropogenic (ANT) forcing; c, d, model simulations with anthropogenic plus natural (ALL) forcing. For each pair of panels, results are shown for RX1D and RX5D precipitation amounts. Black solid lines are observations and dashed lines represent multi-model means. Coloured lines indicate results for individual model averages (see Supplementary Table 1 for the list of climate model simulations and Supplementary Fig. 2 for time series of individual simulations). Each time series is represented as anomalies with respect to its 1951–99 mean.” Min et al., 2011.

We are possibly at our extreme limit of understanding climate change. Any information we do not yet have,  any phenomenon we do not yet understand, and any time wasted on denialism leads to greater disaster. There is no time to waste as “climate change isn’t a future problem anymore, it’s happening here and now” (350.org). At the front line of acceptance of the role of human activity on altering our cliamte, lies the devastating extreme weather events shown in the videos above.

It is difficult to believe that a two-mile round trip to visit a doctor pushes the boundaries of one’s ‘allocated’ carbon footprint. It is highly unlikely that all of the practice’s doctors, receptionists and administration staff comply with this self-professed regulation. What is even more unlikely is that they all drive small-displacement, high-efficiency vehicles, never fly to local or international locations (for business of pleasure) and walk, cycles and car-pool wherever possible. So it becomes an issue of hypocrisy. It seems in this day and age where laws protect every domain of the client or employee, the effective (and seemingly vogue) way of accomplishing another agenda is to jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon. This clearly gives the carbon footprint initiative a bad name, and is detrimental to the progression of a necessary and important way for individuals to make a practical and positive contribution to retarding global warming.

What follows on from this, is misinformed people in positions of authority categorically stating that x and y must be implemented in sector z in order to reduce the carbon footprint of sector z. It may seem like a sound principle on paper, but quickly loses perspective in reality. By way of example, WHO suggests that hospitals install solar panels and wind turbines to supplement power supply. The former is certainly possible but the latter could lead to some controversy. Wind turbines in built-up areas cannot provide high-consumption facilities such as hospitals with appreciable and reliable energy supply. Micro-scale turbines aside, there is a minimum distance between the position of a utility-scale wind turbine and an inhabited structure, which is very difficult to achieve in urban areas. On the topic of wind turbines and health, numerous Canadians have objected to the construction of wind turbines near their properties in Ontario as they are worried that it will negatively affect their health (click here for article). Protesters then went on to say that they were concerned that their properties would suddenly become worthless due to the presence of turbines in the general vicinity. It seems to me that the protesters initially used health concerns as an attempt to discourage the erection of turbines as they perceived that they would achieve their objective by gaining the sympathy of the misinformed. However, even the misinformed would struggle to find a reason as to why health would be affected by wind turbines erected according to sector regulations. So the protesters went on to rant about property values. Again, a case of false evidence to advance ulterior motives.

As hospitals tend to have a large fleet of fossil-fuel burning vehicles, WHO also suggested that hospitals cut down the amount of time that their vehicles spend on the road and invest in vehicles that operate on more environmentally-friendly fuel types. While this might be a good idea in theory, speed and reliability are the most important requirements and, currently, the internal combustion engine is the only affordable choice available to the medical sector. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect a sudden change in the carbon footprint of hospitals’ transport sector, when saving lives is the primary aim in every case.

Unfortunately, energy efficient light-bulbs, though improving, are of a relatively poor standard in South Africa. To expect these to be used in hospitals where the best lighting techniques available should be utilized, energy efficiency will always come second to application.

You may be wondering if I’m against the whole idea of trying to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Of course I’m not. I think it is an excellent initiative, but just needs to be applied in the correct fashion and to the correct sector. It’s about perspective and common sense. Let’s not focus on the more trivial cases, such as patients travelling to doctors, or ambulances rushing off to an accident scene; let’s focus on the bigger picture: reducing the carbon footprints of massive factories and industries and implementing large-scale wind and solar farms that don’t power a hospital, but help power a city.

Utter the three letter acronyms AGU or EGU in a natural sciences university department and thoughts will instantly turn to the annual conferences held in San Francisco and Vienna respectively. I have attended the EGU meeting twice but have not yet had the pleasure of attending an AGU meeting. Presumably it is much the same; thousands of scientists running from room to room sitting through countless powerpoint presentations only to find that the talk they had most been looking forward to is no longer on the agenda. Yet these mega-conferences provide arguably one of the best forums to engage with like-minded, and not-so-like-minded, scientists from research institutions around the world. Naturally, as the union names suggest, EGU is dominated by scientists from Europe and AGU is dominated by scientists from North America. Although Europe and America have the largest share of natural scientists, in order to build science research capacity elsewhere in the world, specifically in Africa, surely it makes sense to be thinking about how best to develop these sorts of institutions and networks of scientists.

In the past decade, the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) has been established to bring together researchers in Asia and Oceania to emulate EGU and AGU. Their 9th annual meeting will be taking place in August at the Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore. AOGS recognise their role in enabling scientists within Asia and Oceania to publish in respected international journals and partner with other geophysical and geosciences unions. In addition, many individual nations have established science networks and institutional bodies. In South Africa, we have the South African Geophysical Association (SAGA). There also exists an International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) and indeed a Global Geoscience Initiative has been advocated but currently there is nothing on the table (to my knowledge) for an African Geosciences Union (AfGU…as AGU has already been taken).

The mission statement of the EGU is “dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the geosciences and the planetary and space sciences for the benefit of humanity”. Similarly, the mission of the AOGS is to “promote geophysical science for the benefit of humanity in Asia and Oceania”. It is interesting to note that humans are singled out as the sole beneficiary of these unions. Perhaps an African equivalent might want to go further and include ecosystems and other species as target beneficiaries. In any case, the objectives of the AfGU (I include my own primitive design for a logo for some visual stimulation) could include the following components:

To provide a forum for scientists and researchers, primarily from African science institutions, to share research output.

To develop a network of members to increase collaboration between African research centres.

To enable and encourage African researchers to publish in leading international science journals.

Naturally, many issues would need serious consideration and I certainly don’t want to underestimate the political, economic and logistical barriers in establishing such an institution. At the very least, one would need to think carefully about how to structure the organisation, who would be selected to chair meetings/conferences and crucially how the union would be funded. Details of where an annual AfGU conference might take place would, presumably, be a secondary concern. Lessons could undoubtedly be learned from the AOGS experience and other similar initiatives but building a united African scientific institution is unlikely to be a straightforward process. AfGU would (at least initially) be relatively small in comparison to its European and American counterparts. Yet for a continent with over one billion people, many of whom would benefit from an increasing science presence in Africa, is it timely or indeed even appropriate to consider the development of such an institution? It wouldn’t surprise me if there have been high-level talks about the formation of AfGU (or an equivalent) so if anyone has access to the “higher-level” it would be interesting to hear from you.

Perhaps the African Geosciences Society would be a more suitable name, if only to allow the acronym AGS to be used in order to differentiate it from the AGU. Of course, the AGS would then have to compete for Google search space with the Adventure Game Studio, the American Geriatrics Society and the illustrious American Goat Society!

The final day of the conference began with an address by Irina Bokovo, the Director General of UNESCO. She reiterated the need for “systems thinking” in the context of planetary stewardship. The conference co-chairs presented a declaration on the State of the Planet (see conference website), described as a “living document” which will be a key part of the conference output to inform negotiations at the Rio+20 meeting. The declaration focuses on three areas of significant scientific progress over the last decade: the notion of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch; the recognition of the interconnectedness between the environment, society and the economy; and the bringing together of social and natural sciences to provide policy relevant research and establish an evidence base for informing action.

Sybil Seitzinger, director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, delivered a powerful address with some spectacular graphics illustrating both the complex nature of the challenges facing humanity and possible approaches to deliver solutions to combat these challenges. In particular, she commented on a recent study by Shindell et al. (2012) showing the win-win outcome of reducing methane and black carbon emissions on air quality in the short-term and climate change mitigation in the long-term. She also explained that the conference had made conscious decisions to reduce the meat content of food provided at lunch; I must admit, I was a little surprised to find only egg salad, cheese ploughmans and pepper and couscous sandwiches available on day 1. Quite honestly, it was a refreshing change from the “chicken or beef” options which typify the UCT food hall. Also to reduce waste lunch was given to delegates in brown bags rather than in the form of a buffet. Curiously, they measured nitrogen levels at the conference which were apparently 30% down on what they would have been if the usual amount of meat had been consumed.

The use of technology at the conference was impressive. In the plenary sessions questions from audience members and those watching online were put to speakers via twitter and read out from an ipad (of course). In response to a question on how international forums can reach agreement, Frank Biermann presented a big idea (“for a big challenge”) about the process of unilateral decision making. He claimed that the conventional consensus process was failing global society and a qualified majority voting system at the international policy scale could/should be introduced to prevent policy from being stifled. In the discussion that followed, it was commented that an alternative to the G20 based on population may be more advantageous, and ultimately more equitable, in improving the speed and scale of responses. I wonder how the climate science community might react to the suggestion that the IPCC be a majority led process rather than a consensus process? (…of course, I am not suggesting it – just an interesting thought exercise)

Despite the efforts of Sybil Seitzinger, slide of the day (below) goes to Johan Rockstrom who eloquently described the Future Earth project (you must realise that the slide of the day award is heavily affected by my inability to take good pictures of other equally suitable candidate slides). The “3-6-9” refers to the great challenges we face: a projected 3 degree increase in global mean temperature coupled with a 6th great extinction and a projected global population of 9 billion people by mid-century.

The format of the final day was slightly different to the other three days and the plenary session continued until lunch. Richard Noorgard presented an interesting economic analysis on where the world appears to be heading and where it really ought to be going. He suggested that in order to operate equitably within planetary limits, rich people will need to make sacrifices to help the poor and future generations; he did state that rich people could increase their standard of living but needed to be serious about the extent of their consumption. Noorgard cited a figure of $7.4 trillion which is estimated to be the ecological debt of the rich industrialised nations to poorer developing nations. He concluded his talk (which got at least three rounds of applause) by stating that we can’t look to the economy to design the necessary incentives to alter behaviour and that “prices reflect the economy we have, not the economy what we want to have”.

Oliver Morton from The Economist ably led a panel discussion focused on governance to end the final plenary session. Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Environmental Governance Project, initiated the debate defining governance as the “design and execution of policy”. An interesting discussion followed about the value-laden component of policy. Anne Glover, chief scientific advisor to the European Commission said that values are irrelevant to evidence, a sentiment I am not entirely convinced by given the often competing motives for gathering and disseminating evidence: exhibit A, courts of law. Glover expressed that we (the notion of who constitutes “we” led to some debate) have to use and respond to the evidence or we will fail as a species. I wonder whether there has ever been a period in human history where we have been required to act together as a species…sounds a bit too close to the film Independence Day for comfort!

In the final plenary session and indeed throughout the conference it has been stated that humans are becoming increasingly disconnected with nature. Oliver Morton (rightly in my opinion) questioned this notion stating that everyone is only a “breath away from nature”. I agree that we are becoming more urbanised as a society but surely we are also becoming more aware of global environmental issues given the increased focus in schools, the media and in online forums. One could argue (and I might be one of them) that as a global community we have never been more aware of nature and the value that Earth’s resources have for our lives and livelihoods.

I thought I’d end my summary of the conference with a photograph of the docklands area taken outside the conference centre. There is a lot of detail in the photo: Canary Wharf, the millennium dome, a plane (look closely) and a cable car (look even more closely) which is currently under construction to connect the Excel centre and the millennium dome for the opening of the Olympics. I guess the photo illustrates that society and our environment has and will continue to change dramatically. The infrastructure and decisions we make today with have a lasting impression on our landscape. What might this view look like in 10, 20 or even 50 years time?

In the discussion that followed one person commented that institutions (specifically national meteorological agencies) often become “locked” into the process of improving climate forecasts by increasing model resolution. I am glad that others share this as a concern in the context of providing guidance for adaptation. As you may be aware from my previous posts, I am not convinced by the justification given for focussing computational and human resources on producing high resolution climate model data. Advocates of this approach argue that model information is irrelevant at lower resolutions. Whilst this may be true in many (perhaps most) cases, a high resolution projection in the absence of a detailed uncertainty analysis is scientifically naive. The desire to make climate model output look like remotely sensed observed weather might help in creating impressive images for glossy documents but do such projections really qualify as “useful information” for adaptation practitioners? One hopes that those making adaptation decisions are not captivated by the pretty colours and fail to acknowledge the uncertainties.

Certainly compared to most conferences, Planet Under Pressure has delivered some visual treats. I have seen a number of short films, cartoons and presentations using state-of-the-art graphics which has given a touch of class to the proceedings. Below is a birds-eye view of the exhibit area showing the impressive NASA hyperwall which mesmerised delegates throughout the week (the hyperwall has also featured at COP 17 and presumably many other science conferences). Thankfully, in addition to the polished nature of the conference, the content has also been fairly consistent.

“Convergent Global Megatrends”: with a session title like that I could not resist attending. To my delight, the session was also one of the most interesting of the week. The highly distinguished panel comprising Bob Watson, John Beddington, Pavel Kabat, Ed Barry (and other leading experts) enagaged in an insightful discussion chaired by Jim Hall from the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University. Bob Watson stressed that an alternative to GDP is desperately needed to provide a measure of wealth that incorporates sustainability. Inevitably I was left wondering how one might derive an objective measure of sustainable GDP (suggestions welcome!). Ed Barry from the Population institute provided some daunting statistics about projections of global population in 2100. As in climate change discourse, the headline figures tend to focus on the mean/median/best guess values of 9 to 10 billion by 2100 whilst the actual projections span the range from 6 to 16 billion. Despite these uncertainties, John Beddington re-focused the discussion saying that over the next 15 to 20 years, a “politically tangible” time scale, the direction and variance of the trajectory for climate, population and urbanisation is clear; his comment that infinity is beyond the electoral cycle got a good laugh. There was also an interesting question and discussion regarding energy subsidies. According to Bob Watson (and the IEA) the global fossil fuel energy industry, worth some $6 to $8 trillion, receives government subsidies of $400 billion each year compared to $65 billion for renewable technologies (the global turnover of the renewable sector was not given). Clearly vested interests are effective in maintaining subsidies for established fossil fuel industries and it was suggested that governments should create “ministries for natural resources” to ensure that the governance structures acknowledge planetary boundaries. This idea links to one of the main sentiments shared by delegates throughout the conference. Chris Llewellyn Smith, director of energy research at Oxford, stated that universities needed to focus more on creating “systems thinkers” by adjusting the nature of taught modules for undergraduates. Promoting a systems perspective on global change challenges was reiterated in many of the conversations I encountered throughout the conference.

On another unusually sunny and warm March day in London, the Excel Centre (above) played host to the second day of the Planet Under Pressure conference. The day began with an address by Yvo De Boer (former executive of the UNFCCC) who described that the key challenge for enabling green growth was decoupling human progress with the use and consumption of resources. Prof Bina Argawal from Delhi University followed, presenting an optimistic view of community led resilience to global environmental change stressing the value of cooperatives and collective action. To end the plenary, Richard Black from the BBC led a panel discussion on innovative solutions to the challenges being discussed at the conference (see picture below). Keith Clarke from Atkins got straight to the point with his comment that “the market is not moral” explaining that despite the rhetoric of business leaders, the market will only favour sustainable solutions if blunt instruments are introduced. Pamela Collins from École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne gave an interesting perspective stating that individuals often fail to act sustainably because they feel powerless to change global problems. She urged solutions to focus on empowering individuals rather than using the proverbial “stick” to change behaviour.

Before lunch I attended a very interesting session on adaptation strategies and disaster risk reduction. Dermot Grenham presented some work done at the LSE on microinsurance. Despite being interested in this field and studying at the LSE for two years, I hadn’t come across his work. Clearly effective communication within univesities and individual institutions is often as difficult as successfully communicating research to society! He set the context by stating that climate change was a driver of microinsurance demand and supply. However when I questioned him after the session, he admitted that microinsurance would be as valuable, and perhaps even more effective, if the climate was stationary. Terry Cannon from the Institute of Development Studies examined the space of research between development, adaptation and disaster risk reduction stating that the links are often weak. The good news is that the Africe Climate and Development Initiative (ACDI) at UCT appears to be improving these links, at least within Africa. He made the observation that solutions developed to address global change problems were rarely “problem defined” and all too often “institution defined” solutions, where those studying the problem devlop solutions linking direcetly to their specific interests and expertise, are deemed appropriate. This session also included an intersting talk from Sarah Aziz who spoke about translating “science speak” into “legal speak” (and back again) as well as a presentation from Carlos Welsh demonstrating that some Mexican communities are perhaps surprisingly resilient to climatic extremes because of well established community practices.

Over lunch I realised I had left my coat in the room where I had been sitting for the previous session. I hurriedly marched back into the room and because I felt to embarrased to simply grab my coat and leave, I decided to stay in the lunch time session that was taking place. It turned out to be quite interesting with a focus on exploring the implications of global environmental change in the health sector. Notably, a health specialist at IRI (Columbia University, NYC) commented that climate model led information was often not very tangible and was therefore rarely utilised in the health sector. She pointed towards the recent efforts in Ethiopia (see previous blog) suggesting that the dissemination of observational data and the provision of climate services provided a useful platform for informing health sector decision making.

In the afternoon I attended a session titled “Making Climate Science Useful”. As noted by the session convenor, this subject deserves its own conference and given the limited scope of the discussion that followed, I would certainly agree with her. The session consisted of a number of breakout groups led by selected individuals who each had to pitch to the audience encouraging people to join their discussion group. This left me with the feeling that I wanted to take part in more than one discussion and to be honest I was a little frustrated by the format. Perhaps it was just the group I chose to join (which focussed on the use of seasonal forecasts) but inevitably the discussion was dominated by those with the loudest voices. Nonetheless, some interesting discussion ensued and one comment that I found particularly interesting was that forecasters in many African National Met agencies are reluctant to issue probabilistic seasonal forecasts and preferred to give “best guess” forecasts. Personally, I feel that it is important for Met agencies to feel confident in issuing uncertainties with seasonal forecasts (and indeed longer time scale projections) in the form of probabilities or otherwise. There were also many comments regarding the need for science-based forecasts to be incorporated with indigenous knowledge and practise. Of course this sounds sensible but in the context of forecasting there is a risk that traditional and cultural ways of forecasting future seasons (i.e. the onset of seasonal rains) are contradictory to methods with scientific credibility. Should science information providers be encouraging people to act on the basis of evidence and indeed are traditional/cultural forecasting methods ever compatible or complimentary to science led methods?

…and finally, slide of the day (well one slide from a series of good slides) goes to a speaker from the Nordic Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research: the slide (below) shows a vulnerability index for regions in Norway. Her talk was one of a series of talks forming a session about the prospects of information and communications techonology for sustainability in developing countries. Her work, and the work of her colleagues, demonstrated how visualisations and ICT can improve the interaction between information producers and users but she, and he fellow speakers, cautioned against the risks of misinterpreting seemingly attractive visual representations and stated that researchers must be reflexive about the approaches taken.

The conference actually began yesterday with an opening talk by Sir Bob Watson and a drinks reception at the conference centre but I was stuck on the slow train from Herefordshire to London. Nevertheless I finally made it to the Excel Centre this morning to join the other 3,000 delegates in a rather large auditorium where we were treated to some opening comments from an ensemble of esteemed speakers including the 2009 Nobel laureate for economics, Professor Elior Ostrom from Indiana University, and Lord Martin Rees, a past president of the Royal Society. I guess the talks were designed to inspire the delegates and despite the slightly odd “award ceremony” style of the introductions, I think it worked reasonably well. That said, many of the speakers did present somewhat biased perspectives on the challenges and necessary solutions to the key global problems and as a scientist I try my best to avoid political advocacy where possible. Whilst I enjoyed listening to Lord Anthony Giddens (London School of Economics), his assertion that “scientists must launch an assault on climate change sceptics” was somewhat politically charged and did seem a bit unnecessary. Surely climate scientists can provide compelling science to influence political decision making without resorting to an “assault”?

Diana Liverman from the University of Arizona went against the grain to give a well balanced, thoroughly researched presentation outlining much of the evidence about the state of the planet; evidently a planet that is in a bad way but showing some signs of recovery. Slide of the day (below) goes to Will Steffen from the Australian National University who superimposed the range of 21st century IPCC projections onto the global temperature time series of the last 2,000 years. The same scale is used demonstrating the sheer magnitude of the range of projected changes to global mean temperature. His discussion about possible bifurcation points towards a new stable state or a reversion towards a Holocene-like state was insightful; of course any mention of limit cycles and bifurcations suggests a man after my own heart!

A panel discussion ended the plenary session which included a protest against Shell (who were represented by Jeremy Bentham) as two individuals unfurled a banner with the Shell logo, defaced to resemble a skull, and a slogan stating “Stop the greenwashing”…unfortunately by the time I got my camera they had rather politely left the stage.

I attended two afternoon sessions, the first of which focussed on recent progress in climate change prediction chaired by Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer. Akio Kitoh from the Japanese Meteorological Research Institute compared model projections of Pacific typhoons and stated that “high resolution models are needed for impacts studies on adaptation to climate change”. Certainly this sentiment was shared by Julia Slingo and Adam Scaife who presented some recent work at the Met Office suggesting that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) could only be reliably modelled using high spatial resolution and increased vertical layers in the stratosphere. Wilco Hazeleger from KNMI gave a Dutch perspective on using climate projections to inform decisions stressing the need to consider an alternative to a top-down projections based approach. The discussion that followed certainly seemed to support Wilco’s views rather than the “need” to move to high resolution projections, despite the scientific merit that such an effort might yield. I was left perplexed about two things. Firstly the Met Office work presented was said to have some relevance to climate change adaptation yet the “climate change” experiments were associated with a 4 times carbon dioxide concentration experiment. These levels of carbon dioxide will almost definitely not be observed for many decades, perhaps even hundreds of years so the relevance of such experiments for current decision making is limited at best. Secondly, whilst I share many of Tim Palmer’s views and have enormous respect for his work, his comment that climate modellers are striving to “simulate reality” was discomforting. I don’t think I am being entirely unreasonable to suggest that climate models will never simulate reality and perhaps he didn’t mean this literally but we do need to be careful about how we communicate the aim of developing climate models to better represent the climate system. In promising that high resolution models will provide more “realistic” models, we need to be clear that model projections will always be subject to large, often irreducible uncertainties.

Finally, to round up a successful day one, I attended a session discussing the sustainability needs of the least developed countries (LDCs). Some interesting talks from different corners of the world provided perspective concerning global environmental change and the potential disastrous consequences that are vital to avoid. The picture below shows a speaker addressing the social pressures impacting climate change adaptation in Bangladesh (I failed to make a note of his name). David Smith from the West Indies described how Jamaica has, in the last decade, suffered annual losses from enironmental hazards that exceed annual government spending. Issues of data quality and maintanence were highlighted and evidence was presented showing that large losses in LDCs are often associated with complacency resulting from a lack of disasters in recent memory. This got me thinking about how risk can be a function of time even if the probability of a hazard and the exposure to risk doesn’t change as vulnerability will be exacerbated if people are complacent and less likely to heed warnings. As the session closed, I made my to the tube stop looking forward to day two!