|
Climate Digest for November 2009
Click here to download a pdf
Climate science
Adaptation
Risk, uncertainty & decision-making
Policy
Climate science
1. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
Efforts to mitigate climate change focus on stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In order to achieve this, global carbon dioxide emission need to be cut dramatically. However, the relationship between emissions and atmospheric concentration is complicated by the uptake of carbon dioxide into sinks which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this paper, the authors constructed a global annual carbon dioxide budget between 1959-2008 and analysed the drivers of each component.
While progress has been made in monitoring the trends in the carbon cycle and understanding their drivers, significant gaps remain. In particular it is difficult to link anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on a year to year basis. This is primarily because of the level of uncertainty in calculating carbon budgets such that the residual flux from the sum of all known components of the global carbon dioxide budget (currently ± 2.1 Pg C yr-1), needs to be reduced to below the uncertainty in global carbon dioxide emissions, ± 0.9 Pg C yr-1.
Between 1959 and 2008, 43% of each year’s carbon dioxide emissions remained in the atmosphere on average. In the past 50 years, the fraction of carbon dioxide emissions which remain in the atmosphere each year has been estimated to have increased from about 40 to 45%. The authors suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of carbon dioxide by carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability. This trend, if correct, suggests that the positive feedbacks between climate and the carbon cycle predicted by many climate-carbon cycle models may be correct.
Current growth in anthropogenic carbon dioxide is closely linked with economic growth. On the basis of projected changes in GDP, the global recession is likely to result in carbon dioxide emissions falling back to 2007 levels. The key to sustained emissions reductions after economic recovery lies in decoupling emissions from GDP.
Source: Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Canadell, J. G., Marland, G. et al. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience. Focus/Progress Article. (November 2009) doi: 10.1038/NGEO689
Adaptation
2. An ethical approach to climate adaptation finance
This article develops a framework of procedural justice for the financing of climate adaptation. It constructs a procedural justice that draws on ethical principles such as the polluter pays principle, ability to pay and putting the most vulnerable first.
This leads to a principle of fair adaptation funding that promotes inclusion of all countries, especially the most vulnerable; fair participation in negotiations and commitment of richer, responsible subjects providing forms of assistance to weaker ones in the international adaptation funding regime. The report draws on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice as Fairness (RTJF), and the criterion of differentiated historical responsibility to propose that the burden of adaptation funding should be calculated in proportion to cumulative emissions, not of the ability to pay from availability of income and wealth. It uses Sen’s Capability Approach (SCA) to promote the need for greater access to adaptation funding for weaker countries, more prone to the adverse impacts from climate change.
The framework is finally tested against four funding instruments; the existing Adaptation Fund (AF) and the proposed post Kyoto G77 and China +0.5 percent GNP from Annex 1 countries; the Swiss Global Carbon Adaptation Tax and the Mexican World Climate Change Fund (Green Fund), concluding that these instruments offer principles of inclusion, but less in the way of distributive justice.
Source: Grasso, M. An approach to climate adaptation finance. Global Environmental Change (2009), doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.006
3. Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change
There has been little consensus on the definition of adapting to climate change or on the criteria for determining success. This paper develops definitions of successful adaptation, with the researchers sending three rounds of questionnaires sent to experts for independent responses, including qualitative feedback.
In the first round, the definition offered was: “Successful adaptation is that adaptation that generates net benefits for the adapting party, in both the short- and long-term, without causing net loss of welfare for the wider society.” The experts scored their response from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”. 65% agreed or completely agreed with this, but comments referred to ambiguous terminology, the difficulty in defining net benefits and losses and the need to incorporate adaptive processes into the definition – as well as the need to first define “adaptation” itself.
For the second definition: “Successful adaptation is one that counterpoises reductions in risk and vulnerability, with the temporal and spatial distribution of adaptation impacts on sustainability (social, economic and environmental,)” only 30% agreed or completely agreed. Some attempted to redefine successful adaptation themselves, suggesting that ‘balancing’ is not enough and success implies achieving an optimum level or crossing a threshold.
The third round arrived at the required level of agreement of above 80% with the final definition: “Successful adaptation is any adjustment that reduces the risks associated with climate change, or vulnerability to climate change impacts, to a predetermined level, without compromising economic, social, and environmental sustainability.” Experts commented on how a “predetermined level” is decided, and by whom; and whether “sustainability” should be included or not, or clarified.
The researchers also developed a checklist of 13 evaluation criteria, based on: reducing the probability, magnitude or intensity of a climate change hazard; reducing levels of exposure; reducing the sensitivity of the adaptor, society or future generations; increasing the adaptive capacity of the adaptor, society or future generations; and reducing the impact on economic, social or environmental components of sustainability. 83% considered the checklist to be somewhat or very useful, but most wanted to modify or simplify the list.
The researchers report that continuously refining definitions enabled agreement to emerge. The main issues left unresolved related to: defining sustainability; including or excluding mitigation alongside adaptation; including or excluding benefits under climate change alongside risks; identifying predetermined levels of success; and how this should be used in making decisions.
Source: de Franca Doria, M., Boyd, E., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W.N. The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Environmental Science & Policy. Vol. 12 (May 2009) 810 – 819. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.001
Risk, uncertainty and decision-making
4. Assessing the effectiveness of decision support
There is a growing demand for decision support on climate change, and a plethora of support has been produced to satisfy this appetite. But are they any good? And how can we know if they are?
In this paper, Moser argues that a number of critical questions need to be answered in order to evaluate whether the decision support is effective, and that posing such questions early on will produce more useable products, and ultimately ensure that they achieve their intended outcomes.
Of primary importance in assessing effectiveness of any decision-support process is to explicitly state what the process is intended to achieve. All too often, the explicit goals of a decision support or engagement process are vague and, critically, fail to address the key question of “whose goals” are to be met. Equally important is to ask the question “who evaluates?” Each evaluator brings their own values, insights and perspectives to the table, which will influence their assessment of a tool’s value. A final issue relates to the timing of the evaluation: how soon after the process has ended, should it be evaluated? If evaluation occurs too early, some of the outputs and outcome may not be available; but if left too late, memories can fade, perceptions can change, documents can get lost and personnel change, limiting the learning that can take place.
Evaluation of a tool requires that conceptually valid and empirically measurable metrics can be identified against which the explicitly stated goal can be measured. Some qualitative or quantitative assessment of the pre-existing conditions against which the impact of the process can be assessed is also needed. Finally, the effect of the particular support process needs to be causally linked to a measurable output.
These processes are not trivial. Moser concludes that careful planning, critical evaluation of the approaches, benefits and drawbacks, ample forethought and adequate resources are required in the development and evaluation of decision support; and that collective learning and reflection of all parties involved will go a long way towards ensuring greater effectiveness of decision support in future.
Source: Moser, S. Making a difference on the ground: the challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of decision support. Climatic Change (2009) 95: 11-21.
Policy
5. The tipping point trend in climate change communication
The term tipping point suggests a moment or interval of high sensitivity within a system, to abrupt and irreversible changes. As such, the use of such a term is intended to aid in the identification and communication of discrete thresholds for danger. Media coverage can often emphasize such points in a sensational and alarming way. This article documents the use of tipping points in climate change discourse to discuss their significance. With statements such as ‘‘we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption’’ (Hansen, 2005, p. 8) being quickly reflected in public debate. This article presents a review of scientific and news print literature in this field and discusses the popular emergence of the concept of tipping points before their adoption for the climate change discourse and a presents a number of issues regarding the rapid mainstreaming of tipping point warnings of dangerous climate change.
A fundamental question raised in this article concerns whether tipping points induce unwarranted anxiety and in some cases a fatalistic approach where some may view the situation as irresolvable, so why try? However, it could also be argued that they may address a false sense of security produced by projections of change presented as a smooth change gradient, which can lull society into inactivity or make it hard to decide on a potentially expensive precaution. Assumptions are made about the communicative effect of using tipping points and understanding and representing clearly how the thresholds are determined is important as representing them metaphorically can be ambiguous, although for some audiences it may be the only way. It should therefore be chosen well. The article recommends that it may prove helpful to better distinguish tipping points, in the sense of change coming from the internal dynamics (or indicative criteria) of a system rather than an external force, from thresholds.
Referenced material: Hansen, J., (2005) Is there still time to avoid ‘‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’’ with global climate? A tribute to Charles David Keeling. American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December 6.
Source: Russill, C., Nyssa, Z. The tipping point trend in climate change communication. Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 336–344. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.001
Back to top
|
