COP21 falls short in addressing climate change for the South Pacific Islands

Leave a comment

Research done for the Pacific Peoples Partnership, Victoria BC 

Vulnerability in the South Pacific Islands

The South Pacific Islands are one of the most vulnerable areas in the world to the effects of climate change. The risks are not a matter of inconvenience, but a matter of survival. Failure of food systems, drinking water contaminated by saltwater intrusion, extreme storms destroying infrastructure (1), and the looming threat of submergence of entire island nations are the reality for the 1.9 million people who call this area home (2). Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was heavy anticipation among these diverse peoples that the COP21 Paris climate talks would dramatically reduce current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trends and slow, or even reverse, the effects of climate change in the South Pacific Islands.

Earth’s Potential Futures

Climate science is not simple, but it is certain. What lacks certainty is the future. Will human populations continue to expand exponentially? Will we transition to a renewable energy future? If so, when? Will policy be implemented to cap or tax carbon emissions? Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios take into account the different potential futures of our planet, with the three below being the most important:

  • RCP 2.6 is the best-case scenario and involves the complete reversal of current economic systems, extreme reduction in fossil fuel use, rapid implementation of renewable energies as well as carbon capture and sequestration. Average surface temperature would stay at just under 2°C (3).

    • It is important to note that humans have already warmed the planet by 0.75°C to-date (4), and have increased global radiative anthropogenic forcing by 2.3 watts/m2 (5) through emission of man-made greenhouse gases. This means we are currently at RCP 2.3. In other words, humans have contributed enough watts of warming to power an energy smart LED lightbulb on every square metre of the globe.

  • RCP 4.5 is the standard accepted scenario among scientists and would result in 2.4- 3°C warming. This scenario is still considered ‘optimistic’ as aggressive action to reduce global GHG emissions would have to occur. This would involve climate policy and pricing, implementation of renewable energies, emergence of large scale carbon capture and sequestration, global use of bioenergy and expansion of forests, while still allowing the continued use of some fossil fuels (6).
  • RCP 8.5 is ‘business as usual’, based on a fossil fuel intensive economy, consistent with present-day use, and accounting for projected global demographic increases. A temperature change of 1-4.8°C would occur by 2100.

 The Likely Scenario Based on the COP21 Paris Talks

2°C is unequivocally agreed by scientists to be the threshold for dangerous and potentially catastrophic changes in the earth’s climate. However, emissions reduction targets, put forward by 187 countries at COP21, are not adequate to keep rising global temperatures below this level. At best, we are currently aiming for RCP 4.5, a warming of 2.7-3°C (11). Despite the inadequacy of proposed targets, they remain ambitious and should be celebrated as a momentous turning point and global transition towards a green, renewable, economy. There remains hope that targets will be reviewed in the coming annual COP climate talks, and that future meetings will set increasingly adequate targets.

Aiding Developing Nations

It is important to be optimistic, but it is also important to be realistic. The South Pacific Islands are already experiencing the effects of climate change and there is no way to shut the global economy down overnight to reverse these trends (even if this were possible, a further 0.6°C warming would still occur). The impacts on this region will continue to worsen and ‘the damage costs for small island states [will be] enormous in relation to the size of their economies (9)’. This is particularly disheartening considering the Pacific Islands as a whole account for only 0.03% of global co2 emissions, despite having 0.12% of the world’s population (10). This emphasizes the disproportionate effects of climate change – where countries with small economies that have contributed little to rising co2 emissions tend to feel the greatest impacts and incur the greatest costs.

The international Green Climate Fund hopes to distribute $100 billion per year as of 2020 to aid developing nations in adaptation measures, such as storm-proofing or relocating, as well as mitigation efforts, such as installation of solar and wind power to stimulate sustainable economic development. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged a $2.65 billion per year contribution to this fund over the next five years, making Canada the second largest contributor in the world after the U.S, who pledged $3 billion (7). However, it is unanimously agreed that the target of $100 billion per year is not enough to combat global climate change. The Worldbank estimates between 7-10 times this amount is what is realistically needed (8). Nonetheless, this fund is the first time developed countries have agreed to distribute wealth to address the disproportionate effects of climate change in developing countries. Without it, the targets now in place would not have been agreed to by countries like China and India. Therefore, this innovative and essential aspect of the COP21 climate talks should be celebrated alongside the emissions reduction targets.

We too are Pacific Peoples                                                

Climate change eliminates borders and does not play favorites. On the west coast of Canada, we too are Pacific peoples. While the effects of climate change are different in this area, we are not exempt. Longer, drier summers have increased wildfire prevalence in coastal BC (13, 14). Grasslands are increasingly replacing carbon-storing forests (14) resulting in drastic reductions in terrestrial biodiversity (15). Warmer waters are affecting Pacific salmon – a foundationally critical species for all wildlife in this area – by increasing their metabolism, exhausting their energy supply, and causing pre-spawning mortality (16). Highly conservative estimates of a 1m sea level rise in coastal BC (17, 14, 13) will displace 220,000 people who live in the Richmond and Fraser River Delta area of Vancouver alone. Here 4,600 ha of farmland and more than 15,000 ha of industrial and residential urban areas will be inundated (17). Impacts from increased average sea levels will be exacerbated by extreme weather events which will increase in frequency and severity (17, 18). This will further increase flooding and damage to coastal infrastructure, property loss from erosion, habitat loss, saltwater intrusion in coastal aquafiers, and groundwater and biodiversity loss (19).

We face many of the same environmental threats that also affect the South Pacific Islands; we are however, more adaptable due to economic, geographic, and technological advantages. Given these advantages, we must recognize that we have an important role to play in aiding our Pacific neighbors, we must break down the barriers and borders created by nations and recognize that we share this issue as one. We must unite to address climate change.

References:

  1. Barnett, Jon. “Dangerous climate change in the Pacific Islands: food production and food security.”Regional Environmental Change. 11.1 (2011): 229-237.
  2. Keener, Victoria.Climate change and pacific islands: indicators and impacts: report for the 2012 pacific islands regional climate assessment. Island press, 2013.
  3. SPM, IPCC SRES. “Summary for policymakers, emissions scenarios: a special report of IPCC Working Group III, IPCC.”ISBN92.9169 (2000): 113.
  4. NASA. Global Temperaturehttp://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
  5. Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, et.al, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forc­ing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis”RCP4. 5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100.”Climatic Change109.1-2 (2011): 77-94.\
  6. Van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K. & Masui, T. (2011). The representative concentration pathways: an overview.Climatic change,109, 5-31
  7.  Grandia, Kevin (2015). A Primer on Trudeau’s $2.65 Billion Green Climate Fund Announcement.  http://www.desmog.ca/2015/11/27/primer-trudeau-s-2-65-billion-green-climate-fund-a nnouncement
  8. Climate Finance is Flowing, but it isn’t enough- yet. World Bank News. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/09/05/climate-finance-is-flowing-but-not-enough-yet
  9. Field, Christopher B., et al. “Summary for policymakers.”Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC change(2014): 1-32.
  10. IPCC. 2001. Ch. 17. Small Island States. Adaption and Adaptive Capacity. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=637
  11. Climate pledges will bring 2.7°C of warming, potential for more action. (2015). http://climateactiontracker.org/news/253/Climate-pledges-will-bring-2.7C-of-warming-potential-for-more-action.html
  13. Clague, John (2013). Cryospheric Hazzards. Centre for Natural Hazard Research, Simon Fraser Universit. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, The Geologists’ Association & The Geological Society of London, Geology Today, Vol. 29, No. 2, March–April 201
  14. Clague, J.J. and Turner, R.J. 2000. Climate change in southwestern British Columbia: Extending the boundaries of earth science. Geoscience Canada, v. 27, p. 111-120.
  15. Gayton, Donald V. “Impacts of climate change on British Columbia’s biodiversity: A literature review.”Journal of Ecosystems and Management9.2 (2008).
  16. B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2007. Environmental trends in British Columbia: 2007. Victoria, B.C.: State of Environment Reporting. http://www.env.gov.B.C.ca/soe/et07.
  17. Harford, D., Vanderwill, C., & Church, A. (2008). Climate change adaptation: Planning for BC.
  18. Bornhold, B. 2008 Projected Sea Level Changes for British Columbia During the 21st Century. B.C. Ministry of Environment
  19. Carlson, Deborah (2012) PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: An Implementation Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia . Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved from < http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/WCEL_climate_ change_FINAL.pdf>

The world’s most prominent leaders agree to phase out fossil fuels by the end of the century

Leave a comment

Congratulations world. We are finally starting to head in the right direction, fuelled by the passion and commitment from a handful of dedicated leaders.

I’m so proud and happy today that the G7 leaders have agreed to decarbonize by the end of this century. Despite opposition from my own apparent ‘leader’ Stephen Harper, we can all breath a sigh of relief today as our planet takes a small step towards survival in these exciting months leading up to the Paris climate talks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agree-phase-out-fossil-fuel-use-end-of-century

Climate scientist and Green party MLA Dr. Andrew Weaver: The politics and suppression of science

Leave a comment

Dr. Weaver is lecturing at the University of Victoria for the next two weeks in a climate change and society environmental studies course. He exudes passion like you wouldn’t believe and has not let the wear of politics affect his sense of humour.

He displayed the most recent (2008-2012) public opinion polls on climate change. 26% of Americans and 14% of Canadians do not believe in the existence of global warming. This clearly infused an eagerness in Dr. Weaver and he flared up a little. He laughed, frantically gestured, and said

 ‘This question wasn’t asking are humans causing this? it was simply do you believe it! This is like asking do you believe in thermometers!!’

Scientists have done their part. Research persists and climate models increase in accuracy with time but results are conclusive. The fact that climatic temperatures are rising is no longer contested, it is known. Human contribution to global temperature changes is a whole other, much more complicated topic but the fact that 14% of Canadians (or 5 million people: roughly the population of Norway!) are so against the concept of climate change that they don’t believe in thermometer readings shows that global warming is now a matter of politics, not science.

Dr. Weaver discussed two very interesting publications to emphasize the problem:

1. (Boycoff, 2004) investigated a random sample of 636 articles containing the word ‘global warming’ to investigate how the media portrays this issue. 53% of articles placed equal blame on natural cycles and human activity. Boycoff concludes that media in the U.S ‘has contributed to a significant divergence of popular discourse from scientific discourse’. Meaning that by trying to remain unbiased by reporting that global warming is occurring half the time, and that it is a natural cycle the other half, this leads the public to believe that scientists are still 50/50 on this issue, they are undecided and unsure. This becomes even more interesting when one considers the article below.

2. (Oreskis, 2004) investigated 928 published, peer reviewed, scientific articles to see if  climate scientists really are uncertain about this issue. Results: Not a single scientist actually argues that humans are not contributing greenhouse gases that result in climate change. A similar study by Anderegg 2010 looking at 1372 acclaimed climate scientists and their publications revealed similar results as Oreski’s, concluding that 97-98% support guidelines outlined by the IPCC, who’s most recent publication quotes ‘ emissions of greenhouse gases are chiefly responsible for global warming’ and ‘science has spoken, and time is not on our side’.

The media is introducing a bias by portraying a 50/50 perspective while 97-100% of acclaimed climate scientists unequivocally report that global warming is occurring. This is a matter of alternate motives of advertisers and governments affecting public opinion. It is ineffectively communicated science or, more accurately, suppressed science (especially if you are discussing our situation in Canada).

‘We need evidence-based decision making, not decision based evidence making’ said Dr. Weaver.

We must believe in science, not the media, and certainly not what our current government is trying to portray. Theres a whole book on this if you want to learn more, I’m reading it for another class of mine, its called ‘ The war on Science: Muzzled Scientists and wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada‘.   If your still unsure, get your facts straight. Believe in thermometers!

B6dB3INCEAAnozd.jpg-large

If you too are one of those crazy people who believes one person can make a difference

Leave a comment

If you too believe in the power of one here are some things that you can do that will change the world, I promise.

If its Yellow Let it Mellow: Ew right? Yes, I know, there are situations where one simply cannot let it mellow. For example: you are on a first date, finishing off the night by having your first heart-to-heart over a glass of wine. I get it, in this case it is simply not cool to let it mellow. We have impressions to keep up here. But in your own home every saved flush makes a huge difference.Yellow mellow

The american water works association has found that an average person flushes 5 times a day. Each flush uses 3-6 litres of water. A typical person will then flush away 22 litres of water every day. Per person! What is most disturbing about this is that the water in the back of every toilet comes from the exact same water source as our tap water does: we are literally flushing drinking water down the toilet. The world health organization reports that an average person needs 2- 4.5 litres of drinking water per day to survive. The water that each one of us flushes away every day is then enough to provide 8 people with clean drinking water. So look at it this way: each of us can’t completely eliminate this impact but each time its yellow and you let it mellow, you, yes you, just saved enough drinking water for the daily survival of a human being. You just made an immense difference. And I love you for it. 

Compost: 60% of waste created in every household is organic. That means you can decrease your waste contribution by a whole 60% simply by composting! It’s not hard. All it takes is finding a bin (I use an old plastic cake container, if you have a family I’ve seen a kitty litter container work like a charm), whatever you use, it is the easiest thing you can do to separate out your organics, and it makes a huge difference.

compost1

Starting Jan 1st, here in Victoria the Capital Region District (CRD) has banned household organic wastes from entering our regional landfill. Composting is then officially mandatory in all regions of Victoria. This is not surprising to me. Landfills all over the world are beyond their capacity and trust me it is a very political thing to create new ones (who wants that near their property, really!). It’s also important to consider the impacts that municipal wastes have on surrounding environments: I spent a year and a half testing this and trust me it’s not pretty. Such impacts would entirely change if organics were not part of the equation (they have a huge role in the decomposition of all other forms of landfill waste). You can help to mitigate these impacts by composting.

Carry a Coffee Mug: I get it. I’m a serious coffee addict too. So much so that my last term I developed a slight eye twitch when I decided I was overdoing it and attempted to live in its absence. Loosely estimating, I would say I drink a coffee or 2 a day at school, so maybe close to 250 a year. The image below is just a typical garbage can here on campus, and I think it shows that a lot of other students on campus likely have the same caffeine addiction as I do.

IMG_09781

In one day, add all of these cups up in this bin alone, or expand to considering all the bins on campus filled to the brim every day, or further, contemplate total annual coffee consumption for an entire country. You are now considering an immense impact. Just from coffee cups! For example, annual coffee consumption in the U.S uses so many cups that, if placed end to end, they would wrap around the earth 55 times. Thats just one country in one year! One person can make a difference: buy a mug and actively carry it around to become a coffee addict with a conscience.

Turn Off the Taps When You’re Brushing Your Teeth: I’ve gotten into all sorts of trouble for this when my parents came to visit me in Belize last year. I get it. My poor step dad is trying to brush his teeth, walking away in between rinses to do little tasks and every time he comes back to the taps they have magically been shut off. I couldn’t help it!

To figure out if I had any justification for my annoying actions I did a small experiment one night to find out what percentage of total water use can be reduced by shutting off the taps in between brushing. My total brushing time was 1m and 44s. On a separate stopwatch I found that 1m and 20s of that time it wasn’t actually necessary to have the taps on (77%)! Considering average flow rate of a typical faucet at 4.73 litres per minute, that’s 6.3 Litres of water that I save each time I brush my teeth. Add that up over a year and an average person will save nearly 4.5 thousand litres of fresh water, enough for the daily needs of 10 thousand people. We are so lucky we have access to so much of this precious resource in Canada, many countries are struggling with water shortages. Make this wee shift and feel great about it because the little things really do add up.

Recycle: I left this one for last because it seems so standard right? but the environmental protection agency reports that still 66% of recyclables still end up in landfills (this number is much higher in developing countries like Belize where only glass beer and soda bottles can be recycled). My own brother doesn’t recycle, and he’s far from dense. He’s aware that it’s not a good thing, he just hasn’t developed the habit. I’ve even made recycling bins for him, labeled them and put lists of exactly what to put in each one and it still didn’t stick. I’ve tried to encourage it, in fact every time I visit him I say something along the lines of ‘It literally takes no extra effort, simply put it in a separate bin. Yes plastics you have to give a quick rinse but to just not bother is just a sad, uncalled for, slap in mother nature’s face.’ And then he laughs, makes fun of me and proceeds to discuss electricity.

We have access to this wonderful service and yet cumulatively we are failing at recycling 66% of what is possible. I get it, sometimes it can be a little confusing. Why can’t I recycle my milk cartons? whats the difference between hard and soft plastics? These are questions I had to ask at one point too and heres a guide of what can and cannot be recycled that makes things simple. Print it out and you will have a good guide until it becomes second nature.

basic recycling guide

These things do make a difference. And if you too make these your pet peeves. I assure you, it’s o-so satisfying and your actions will influence those around you.

‘It’s the action, not the fruit of the action, that’s important. You have to do the right thing. You may never know what results come. But if you do nothing, there will be no result. In a gentle way, you can shake the world.’

-Mahatma Gandi