Bryan Alexander

This week I’m participating in an exciting conference, the Science-Based Choices for Climate Action, Insights from the IPCC 6th Assessment Report.  I look forward to soaking up presentations, and also to feedback from my presentation about higher education’s future.

I‘m tweeting the event (hashtag #DsonICS22) and live-blogging it here.  (Here’s the post for day 1.) I’ll update this post during the day.

Neil Leary, Dickinson College, organizer of the event, welcomed in-person and online audiences.

Then we proceeded to the first panel, with the theme of rising to climate change’s challenges.  It included: Ko Barrett, Senior Advisor for Climate, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and IPCC Vice Chair; Fatima Denton, United Nations University Institute for Natural Resources in Africa and IPCC Working Group 3 author; Benjamin Preston, RAND and IPCC Working Group 2 author.  Rachel Jacobs, Dickinson College, moderated.

Its opening discussion looked at the unique nature of the IPCC, as a “handshake between science and policy,” for its rigor, and for its diverse population.  One point: the IPCC report generation process is very contested, yet ultimately policy neutral.  This last point elicits the desire among some writers to write more special reports.

Jacobs asked how politics impact the IPCC report creation process.  One response: the scientific literature is biased towards scientific literature from the global North, and towards the English language.  Another: the process should be more democratized.  A question about how the process works in practice yielded an answer: a writer handed a stack of bullet points, told to translate them into a chapter. This involves working with a huge amount of reading, as well as fellow writers who can be very skeptical.  One additional point: the IPCC produces a lot of grey literature.

We returned to the theme of diversity and reputation. The IPCC should encourage more people from the global South, more women, more graduate students to participate, and pushing governments to support this.

The second panel concerned Land, Ecosystems and Climate Change.  Heather Bedi, Dickinson College, asked panelists to explain the interface between those domains.  Andreas Fischlin, ETH Zurich and IPCC Vice-Chair, answered by describing how ecosystems provide various services for humanity, themselves powered by biodiversity.  There are many ways to value these services, including financial ($16-54 trillion, by one estimate).  Biodiversity loss rises with global warming.

Gillian Bowser, Colorado State University, COP, described a historical arc of increasing political development.  She began with the Glasgow meeting last year, which hosted a people’s summit, which in turn represents political – national – engagement in the process.  Yet ecosystems tend to appear within financial discussions in political discussions.  Better representation for humans appeared in a succession of meetings, from greater numbers of women participating to more global equity.

Question: how can science address social problems?  Bowser asks us to think of water ownership, starting with the American West, deeming it inequitable because so few Native Americans own water. She then asked us to consider land tenure.  Fischlin points out inequalities built into agriculture.

How can we improve climate justice?  Fischlin points to the need for international equity. Panelists disagree on the importance of COP using the phrase “mother Earth.”  Bowser argues that including youth is vital for equity, especially as they are very concerned about justice. Also, representation needs to include ways of knowing: “It’s not enough to say the scientific body looks like society, if it keeps asking the same old questions.”

Bowser offers ten things individual students can do:

1. Pay attention to ecosystems.
2. Explore the linkages between things.
3. Learn the role of small things (like insects) and use innovative ways to communicate their roles.
4. Small things tell big stories.
5. Use phones to measure the world and share results.
6. Watch insects as they respond to climate change.
7. Improve science communication.
8. Go to a park and learn what an intact ecosystem looks like.
9. Be part of the conversation, including policymakers.
10. Remember that every landscape has a culture, and every culture a landscape.

Fischlin points out that not everyone has a phone, and adds that the youth has a right to a decent future.  Every action can help.

Dr. Leary asks the audience for citizen work. People here do watershed monitoring, greenspace analysis, beekeeping, and farming.

Here we broke for lunch. I’ll post these notes so far, then update over the afternoon.

Afternoon sessions began with a panel on Food, Agriculture, Water and Climate Change.  Aditi Mukherji, International Water Management Institute and IPCC Working Group 2 author, argued that climate change negotiations understate the importance of the multi-dimensional water crisis. This includes extreme water amounts, from drought to heavy precipitation and flooding.   Non-climate factors make things worse, such as the heritage of colonialism.

Toshihiro Hasegawa, National Agricultural and Food Research Organization and IPCC Working Group 2 author, spoke to climate impacts on food and fiber.  Climate change is hitting agriculture, forestry, fishing, especially in low and mid-latitudes, driving increased risk of acute food insecurity.  Increasing temperatures will worsen that situation, while challenging food safety, dietary health, and the livelihood of people working in food systems.

Rachel Bezner Kerr, Cornell University and IPCC Working Group 2 author, spoke to inequities in food systems.  Marginalized groups (women, minorities, migrants) are at greater risk from climate change.  As a result, inclusive governance needs to include these groups, and we should recall that technical responses can worsen impacts.  We should also recognize and integrate indigenous and local knowledge in adaptation thinking.

Maladaptation is starting to swim into view, when adaptation results in worsening social inequities or increasing greenhouse gases.  One example is irrigation sited badly, which can weaken soil or worsening water access.  Instead, integrated adaptation can include social protection programs (cash transfers, asset building) for marginalized populations, forecast-based financing, capacity building for farmer co-ops, regional grain banks, and public purchasing of regional and local good production.

Panelists discussed positive adaptations, including reducing methane.

The next panel focused on Cities and Climate Change. Debra Roberts returned to celebrate cities as a great location of climate action, from production to consumption.  Cities are continuing to grow, including smaller (1 million people) ones. Karen Seto returned to argue that cities are crucial, especially in a world with more nations.  Timon McPhearson, The New School and IPCC Working Group 2 author, told us we cannot design cities for cars any longer.  Planning needs to change, to become more inclusive.  20th-century city development created vulnerabilities and inequities; 21st-century climate change worsens those.  The next few decades already have temperature rises baked in.  And nature-based solutions are terribly underresourced.  We have to take mitigation and adaptation steps now.

Wei Ren, Dickinson College, led discussion on these topics.  Panelists approved of urban gardening.  Decarbonization should increase social interaction. Energy needs to switch, both in supply and demand.  Cities can use materials to store carbon, such as massed timber.

A cluster of audience questions followed, centered around “what should we do next?” then the panelists answered.  One calls for the US to cut its BTU/capita usage, while still maintaining a high standard of living.  There’s a call for sufficiency, for focusing more on needs than wants (I think).  Another wants to couple urban development with policies of rent control and building sustainable housing – i.e., cities need to undertake multiple efforts at the same time.  A different panelist notes that the global South often lacks the kind of planning and governance needed to implement such policies.

Example of nature-based development: rebuilding a forest around a city, serving as water catchment, recreating a diminished ecosystem, providing socio-economic opportunities for the locals.  Example of development problems: taxi drivers resisting public transit; people voting against stores near their homes.  Interesting: people say they hate being stuck in traffic and mowing their lawns, but will resist changing these.  Solution: building smaller homes closer to stores.

The day’s final panel was about Dickinson College’s drive to carbon neutrality.  Circa 2005 conversations started, towards a climate commitment. A key detail: plowing efficiency saving into a green fund. In 2020 Dickinson took many steps to advance this.  Overall, the college’s energy use intensity (EUI) declined steadily.  A college farm grew in popularity and usage.  A study found major greenhouse gas emissions coming from farm animals (methane) and campus transportation.  In response the farm composts food waste.

Coming up: using biogas to generate electricity.

And that’s all for day 2.  Now to teach class, then get some sleep.  Another post, tomorrow!

This week I’m participating in an exciting conference, the Science-Based Choices for Climate Action, Insights from the IPCC 6th Assessment Report.  I look forward to soaking up presentations, and also to feedback from my presentation about higher education’s future.

I‘m tweeting the event (hashtag #DsonICS22) and hope to live blog it here.  I’ll update this during the day.

The morning crowd is an interesting mix of college students, graduates, faculty, and staff, with visiting scholars, activists, and leaders. Bonus points: getting to see the excellent Ed Webb and other fine Dickinson friends.

A student, then the college president, quickly launched the program.

Hoesung Lee, Chair, IPCC, gave the opening talk. HE started by outline civilizational constraints, arguing that humanity simply has to live within the carbon budget, within a closed system.  Which is “a very tough mandate.”  Yet within those constraints, we can and should do many things: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, changing our behavior, increasing carbon pricing, and taking advantage of increasing urbanization.  If we do things the right way, reaching net zero by 2050 will launch a new stage in human history.

Webb offered this summary:

https://twitter.com/edwebb/status/1584542352739139584

Key terms from opening address: compounding risks; cascading risks; hard limits to adaptation; path dependence; behavioral & socio-cultural change; urbanization; upgrading infrastructure; conservation of ecosystem services; governance; closed system

Dr. Neil Leary, Director, Center for Sustainability Education, Dickinson College, then introduced the program and its first panel.  Leary emphasized the combination of global and local perspectives.

Sean Shultz, Mayor of Carlisle, Pennsylvania spoke  to growing local awareness of climate issues, while also describing the contours of the local community.  “Residents are coming to realize the impacts of climate change.” Shultz mentions conflicts between state and local authority.  Carlisle did a greenhouse gas inventory, working with Dickinson, then passed a plan to reduce emissions over the next three decades.  Key points: lots of warehousing, so use those buildings’ roofs to host solar; improve energy efficiency for older housing stock; increased electrification of heating and cooling; getting the word out about PA Power Switch.

Christopher Nafe, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, spoke about the programs that DEP offers. Projects and services include benchmarking, feasibility studies, helping transition vehicles away from fossil fuels, helping local governments identify greenhouse gas emissions.  DEP also works with students, giving them the chance to work with local and state governments.  One challenge: convincing political authorities to do very long term planning.  Yet flood plains are flooding more often (redefine what a 100-year flood means).  “Climate change is a costly new reality for townships and boroughs.”

Greg Czarnecki, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, describes changes to local flora and fauna, including the state tree, the eastern hemlock. Season schedules are changing. New mosquito-born diseases (West Nile) are appearing.  A pest on the hemlock is expanding, killing those trees; this reduces shade on water, which then reduces brook trout populations. So the department identifies hemlock which are pest-resistant, as well as tree species which can supplement the hemlock’s functions.  They are also redesigning culverts (pipes under roads) to change their output.

Aisha Rodriguez, a recent Dickinson graduate, and member of the Rose Walters Prize Committee, spoke to environmental justice at the local level.  Legacies of redlining shape how communities experience climate change unequally.  She also describes how Puerto Rico grapples with the crisis as a US territory.

After a short break a second panel then began, on Demystifying the Work of the IPCC.  One panelist, Saleemul Huq, Independent University Bangladesh, couldn’t join remotely, as a tropical cyclone was crippling local internet access.  Karen Seto, Yale School of the Environment and IPCC Working Group 3 author, introduced the IPCC report, its history, and how it was developed.  Seto broke down group functions into science, impact, and mitigation.  Alexander Ruane, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and IPCC Working Group 1 author, described the wide range of authors involved.

Neil Leary asked panelists to describe assessments.  Seto described a key: report policy recommendations are “policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive.”  Next, discussions of IPCC people learning how to better work with news media.  One challenge is bringing together literature and contexts from many national backgrounds, while making the results universally accessible. Another challenge is making sure that the global South/developed countries are fairly represented.  Seto described the logistics of having a global group work through the summary for policymakers report language, live, line by line… then how they shifted the process entirely online during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Leary asked about the role of politics in the report creation. Ruane described political details, such as settling on contested geographical names and pushing some content to footnotes.  Seto mentioned authors seeing certain findings as not relevant to their local issues, then hearing arguments about messaging details, rather than the science they express.

An audience question asks if the IPCC should be more frank, and “less politically correct.”  Ruane distinguishes between scientists and the IPCC, emphasizing the latter’s carefully established reputation for objectivity.  Another question asked about language use, and the authors described using the United Nations’ five official languages.  Question: what is the IPCC doing to make the science more accessible?  Seto notes that deciding where to live is crucial, and commends us to focus on young people (a local high school group is there). Ruane describes new infographics and interactive tools, along with fact sheets in more languages.  There’s also a report just for actuaries in the insurance world.

After a pleasant vegan lunch, we reconvened.

The first afternoon session updated us on the latest science.  Linda Mearns, National Center for Atmospheric Research and IPCC Working Group 1 author, pointed out increasing confidence in anthropogenic warming over the report’s lifespan. Alexander Ruane returned to introduce climatic impact-drivers (CID), “a climate condition that directly affects elements of society or ecosystems,” such as mean surface temperature.

Jesse Abrams, University of Exeter, described “tipping point elements,” physical sites and systemic problems which could have an enormous impact on the Earth system.  Examples include the AMOC, Greenland ice sheet reduction, and Arctic area permafrost thawing. Abrams co-authored this recent Science paper, “Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points,” a key finding of which is that these points might be likely to happen more quickly than previously thought.

In discussion, further points arose. Ruane described wargaming social responses to climate developments.  Mearns emphasized that the science and communication about it are coproduced. Questions about representation among IPCC staff led to a discussion of international climate justice – for example, should developed nations pay for storm damages in the developing world?  One audience member expressed concern that IPCC’s fact-based approach is failing to win over many people.

The next panel explored different pathways to net zero.  Roberto Schaeffer, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and IPCC Working Group III author, read the IPCC report to see multiple paths.  Anand Patwardhan, Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, College Park, spoke to the creation of different carbon budgets based on different global temperature goals, and observed that current trends mean we’ll overshoot a 1.5 C rise.  Steve Rose, EPRI and IPCC Working Group II author, noted that emissions are still on the rise, but we also still have openings, and the possibility to turn uncertainties into benefits.

Discussions considered uneven climate pathways internationally.   Some solutions arose, like massive a/reforestation and biomass + carbon capture, but we must shift to renewables now.  “Negative emission technologies” should be in play, because it’s too late not to.  Technology transfer is also required to help developing nations.  The panel also considered morale, and saw itself as fairly optimistic, especially given recent history.  Education is especially important. One question asked the panel to dwell on urbanization, which led to discussions about development and leapfrogging.

The day’s keynote was from Dr. Debra Roberts, Head of Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit, eThekwini Municipality, South Africa, and IPCC Working Group II Co-Chair, and titled “Why Climate Resilient Development Matters in the Fight Against Climate Change.”  She immediately struck a note of realism, as opposed to optimism, anchored in her IPCC work. She noted the scientific consensus around climate change and urged us to think in terms of climate justice.  She echoes the day’s theme of the importance of urbanization, forecasting nearly 2/3rds of the human race living in cities.  Extreme events can interact, compounding damage and suffering.  Around half of the world’s population live in the most dangerous climate zones.

Roberts focused on damage to natural ecosystems, connecting them to humanity through our mutual dependency.  Water management, food security are vital.

Realism: there are limits to adaptation. Losses and damages will occur.  Some natural solutions might fail, past a 1.5 C temperature increase.  Financial limitations can be powerful restraints.  So we need a social mobilization around adaptation *and* take mitigation actions, namely deep cuts to emissions.   These require political commitments, institutional frameworks, continuing knowledge about climate impacts, monitoring adaptation measures, and doing all of this equitably.

The day concluded with a final panel reflecting on the day.  Hoesung Lee returned to speak to the IPCC’s work, touching on the quality of the report’s science and the importance of integrating the developing world into the process.  Lee praised Dickinson College and higher education in general. Kit Kennedy (Natural Resources Defense Council) was impressed by the day’s focus on local matters, which then built to the global level.  Armond Cohen, Clean Air Task Force, was struck by the sheer complexity of the climate crisis, noting its embeddedness in “everything else.”

Karl Hausker of the World Resources Institute outlined five themes for getting to net zero, described during the day:

1. Lower personal demand by changing behavior.
2. Substitute electrical power for other sources.
3. Produce a lot of power from renewable, clean, zero carbon sources.
4. Reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, notably methane.
5. Develop cheaper ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere

Conversation then became general, and I’ll try to note themes and points, if I can’t identify speakers.  Areas once known as non-flood risks are now flood risks.  Question: what happens to property values of threatened areas?  Question: is adaptation a gateway drug for mitigation? Richer societies are better able to cope; does that mean development is part of climate adaptation?  Improved energy efficiency seems to grow energy consumption.  We should emphasize the overlap between adaptation and mitigation.

Continued: great concern about the potential of mass migration. Concern about climate action competing with an energy, food, or health crisis.  Three interconnected crises: climate change, biodiversity crisis, and social justice – to address these requires a big tent, convincing people that all will benefit.

Optimism?  Emissions still grow, but at a slower rate.  The Inflation Reduction Act passed.  Changes in corporate boards, even with greenwashing, actually implementing commitments.   Carbon energy intensity declined.  Ten countries sustained greenhouse gas declines, including CO2.  India has made a lot of progress.

What needs to be done?  Improving siting permitting in the United States, to speed building processes.  Developed countries need to make good on pledges to the global south, both on mitigation and adaptation.  One possible inspiration: the huge telecommunication revolution of the past generation.  Building more stuff drives prices down; industrial policy would help.

Audience questions: the developed world aiding itself is like a plane passenger snapping an oxygen mask to their face before helping anyone else.  What should the government do? Perhaps a stronger federal role.   The United States does energy innovation well.

Question: is carbon capture greenwashing?  Hausker thinks not. We have some things which we need, which we can’t yet replace (ex: concrete manufacture). We should try enhanced weathering, capturing carbon at the source, and direct air capture. Carbon capture doesn’t mean moral hazard; we’re smarter than that.  Cohen: the world is 80% powered by fossil fuels now. Kennedy: we need safeguards.

Closing note from Lee: he feels more optimistic now.

That’s it for today. I’ll start blogging tomorrow morning.