Tag: sea level

London calling

Flooded-London.jpg

This is what 6 metres of sea level rise (see today’s Eemian post) would look like in central London — iconic buildings abandoned to the encroaching sea. It’s one image from a thought-provoking series: Wish You Were Here? Postcards From The Future, part of the London Futures project, which will be on show at the Museum of London until March. The images are striking — beautiful and unsettling, sometimes humorous — like the camels replacing the horses at Horse Guards Parade, the dust and pink light looking like a Victorian watercolour of Egypt, or wind turbines as flag poles down The Mall, and the palm oil plantation in Hyde Park.

The Telegraph has a gallery, or you can view them all at the London Futures web site.

[The Clash]

House by the sea (not a good idea)

The Royal Society of New Zealand has just published an interesting paper on sea level rise [pdf], the latest in a series on “emerging issues” of public concern. It’s a very good overview of the current state of our understanding of the risk of future sea level rises, reviewing the evidence that’s accumulated since the IPCC’s Fourth Report (AR4), and puts that information into the NZ context.

The paper suggests that as we’re learning more about the behaviour of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica it’s becoming clear that there’s a risk of sea level rise this century much greater than the upper limits given in AR4 (which ignored increasing ice sheet melt). On the other hand, the extreme rates of sea level rise seen during the last deglaciation (4-5 metres per century at times) look less likely, with data from the last interglacial (LIG, aka the Eemian) suggesting 1.5 metres/century is more plausible.

The RS paper also includes a useful summary of various SLR planning guidelines issued around the world. New Zealand’s guidelines (Bryan’s take here), based on AR4, look to be on the low side, but speaking at the press conference to launch the paper, Prof Martin Manning, director of Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University , suggested that in his recent experience Environment Court judges were taking care to stay abreast of current scientific knowledge. That’s important, because as NIWA’s Doug Ramsay pointed out at the conference, 12 of the 15 largest towns and cities in NZ are on low-lying coastal and estuarine margins, there’s been enormous pressure to develop on prime beachfront locations and large chunks of our road and rail infrastructure are within 5 metres of current sea level.

[Iron & Wine]

Shelter from the storm

Towards the end of a recent Yale Environment 360 interview, following a technical discussion of hurricane formation in a changing climate, scientist Kerry Emanuelis asked a question. Given the likely increase in intensity and power of storms and sea level rises, what needs to be done now in the US to start planning for this? His answer caught my attention and set me thinking about New Zealand. Here’s what he had to say about his country:

“…we need to stop subsidizing people to live in dangerous places. The United States is one of the few places in the world that does that, and it does it heavily. So we are basically paying people to move to places where they’re at risk. And, it doesn’t make any sense…”

 

It’s an indirect form of subsidy whereby people living in safer places are paying perhaps 10 percent too much premium on insurance policies whereas those living in dangerous coastal regions are paying far less than the risk warrants.

He points to the irony of a so-called free market economy capping the premiums insurance companies are allowed to charge. Unsurprisingly it’s wealth and political connections which achieve regulation from legislators setting a cap. The insurance companies need premium income, so they are quietly permitted to overcharge people living inland.

“…it’s a very unfair system. It’s a net transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and the worst aspect of it is it promotes huge coastal development. And, therefore, huge damages when even ordinary storms make landfall in the United States.”

He compares this with the east coast of Taiwan, which is battered regularly by storms. There are a handful of fortresses built by wealthy people to withstand a category 5. Otherwise people build holiday plywood sea shanties which are easily replaced when they get blown away.

The subsidies provided in the US are not limited to manipulation of premiums. Emanuel adds  federal flood insurance, which pays for storm surge damage, and federal disaster relief. Yet storm damage to coastal properties is predictable disaster and risk is knowingly undertaken.

The interviewer asks what is going to happen as the century rolls on in places like Miami and the South Florida coast where development is intense and only a few feet above sea level on the beach.

“I think we know what’s going to happen. There will eventually be a hurricane there, and it will do far too much damage for the state to cover. You know, the state basically has become the insurer of property in Florida. Everybody knows that a relatively small hurricane will bankrupt the [state hurricane insurance] plan, and they will all go with hat in hand to the federal government. So the rest of us will bail them out. And so we have the situation of hard-working people in factory jobs and farmers subsidizing the landowners of Palm Beach. It’s crazy.”

I found myself thinking of what Christchurch mayor Bob Parker had to say after the earthquake when questioned as to why the City Council had permitted building on sites vulnerable to liquefaction. It was a mixed picture. Some of the building was done in the past when the phenomenon was not understood. Some more recently was done with foundations adequate to the danger. But what struck me was the fact that there were cases where the Council did not want building to go ahead but developers won out by going as far as court and winning.

It’s hopefully a reminder to us all that regulations relating to development and building should be made as tough as they need to be.  The financial costs of the damage done by the earthquake will be borne by the whole New Zealand community, and few of us would want it to be any other way. But it’s permissible to reflect that the cost and the heartbreak may have been somewhat less in newly developed areas if more stringent regulations had been in place and not vulnerable to challenge from developers.

This is an important issue for future climate change impacts in New Zealand. Coastal development is one obvious area where appropriate standards set in place now can save great expense later as the sea level rises. Local government bodies have responsibilities to avoid or manage coastal hazard risk, and the Ministry for the Environment provides guidance in the task as it relates to climate change. The document Coastal hazards and climate change: A guidance manual for local government in New Zealand is available here. It contains much useful material. It recommends a precautionary approach to new development and to changes to existing development, based on the avoidance of risk. It promotes the need to secure and promote natural coastal margins. I wrote about it in more detail here last year.

There is also a revised New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under consideration, which includes reference to the impacts of climate change on coastal hazards. However this appears to be stalled as controversy has developed over the report of a Board of Enquiry which considered submissions on the draft document and has recommended changes to it.

It is clear that, for the present at least, much responsibility devolves on local government bodies and it’s not too difficult to imagine the pressures that they will come under. Risky new development projects will be promoted vigorously. Expensive protection will be sought for areas already developed and threatened by sea level rise and accompanying storm surge damage. It will require strong planning measures and savvy councils to ensure that the future problems from climate change facing coastal developments are not permitted to grow bigger than they already will be. One wonders whether guidance to local bodies will be sufficient. National level prohibitions may need to be brought into play, for which we would need national politicians who understand the seriousness of the risks ahead.

The impacts of climate change on New Zealand coasts may not reach the level of seriousness which confronts the US, but we would be wise to prevent the investment of financial capital and human expectations in development which will prove unsafe in the course of the century.

[Mr Zimmerman]

Things to come: adapting to climate change in NZ

When I first began to realise what a serious matter climate change was I found it difficult to get interested in adaptation. It sounded to me like acceptance of something that should be resisted. And I disliked the bland voices claiming that the effects of global warming would be easily adapted to if not positively beneficial. However with time I’ve recognised that there is no escaping adaptation. It is as much a part of coping with the threat of climate change as mitigation, and the one doesn’t displace the other. Indeed the need for adaptation may sharpen awareness and spur determination to turn away from fossil fuel energy.

New Zealand appears unlikely to be one of the worst-affected countries as climate change begins to bite. But changes will occur and adaptive responses be demanded. The Climate Change Centre’s recent publication Climate Change Adaptation in New Zealand: Future scenarios and some sectoral perspectives (pdf download here) is a contribution from the scientific community towards discerning what form those responses may need to take.  Gareth announced its publication a few weeks back and over coming weeks I’ll try to report on at least some of the chapters.  I’m starting with a look at the second chapter Global & local climate change scenarios to support adaptation in New Zealand, written by Andy Reisinger and four others.

 

What will we need to adapt to? That depends on what the world does about future carbon emissions. The paper selects and explores two different global scenarios following divergent emissions pathways. One is a high carbon world. It assumes that there will be no concerted efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It represents a fractured world with varying socio-economic and technological development in different geographical areas. It will likely result in large rates of climate change, warming of almost 4 degrees above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, and severe impacts in many regions.

The other scenario is of a rapidly decarbonising world with rapid concerted global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to limit greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations to about 450 ppm CO2-equivalent. This results in a long-term increase in global temperature of about 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. In this scenario the global impacts of climate change impacts would be limited in their severity and extent, but some regions would still experience significant negative impacts.

The paper envisages possible strains between the two nations in the high carbon scenario, including population pressure on New Zealand and a more protectionist stance in Australia.

Before moving to specific effects on New Zealand climate the paper discusses the possible flow-on effects for us from the more generalised global impacts of the changing climate.  Our near neighbour Australia, likely to suffer severe effects from climate change, figures largely in these considerations. The paper envisages possible strains between the two nations in the high carbon scenario, including population pressure on New Zealand and a more protectionist stance in Australia.  Under the rapidly decarbonising scenario by contrast we could expect a more harmonised and cooperative approach to mitigation and adaptation. In relation to the wider world the paper points to a number of possible effects for New Zealand in the high carbon scenario ranging from instability in the Pacific Islands to possible new international trade barriers and new alliance groupings. In the rapidly decarbonising world we can expect some benefits from the changes in energy production systems and technologies, as well as some costs.  International trade agreements are likely to be linked to climate and environmental efficiency standards.

The paper then turns to specific climate changes in New Zealand, focusing mainly on temperature and precipitation. One or two things struck me particularly in this section. In relation to temperature it is in the latter half of the century that the high carbon scenario diverges most strikingly from the rapidly decarbonising scenario. Projected temperatures rises in New Zealand are below the global average, but coping with around a 1.25 degree change by the end of the century looks much preferable to the around 2.5 degrees over much of the country that is projected under the high carbon scenario.  Precipitation changes show a strong west-east gradient driven by the expected increase in southern hemisphere westerly winds. The increases in the west and decreases in the east are markedly stronger in the high carbon scenario by the end of the century.

In treating other climate elements and extremes in New Zealand the paper is less specific, on the grounds that not enough scientific work has yet been done. However in the matter of temperature extremes it finds decreases in frost occurrence and increases in high maximum temperatures are robust findings. It expects roughly that by the 2030s what is currently an unusually warm year will have become the norm, and an unusually warm year in the 2030s will be outside the ranges of temperature experienced in New Zealand to date.

On precipitation extremes it suggests that a currently experienced extreme rainfall with a 100-year return period could occur approximately twice as often under a local warming of about 2 degrees. It notes that increasing flood peaks resulting from these extremes will interact with rising sea levels.

Drought magnitude and frequency are expected to increase, with the possibility of a current 1-in-20 year drought occurring at least twice as often in some eastern areas under a warming of about 2 degrees.  Fire risks are likely to be more marked, especially in eastern areas.

Sea level rise receives separate attention.  The paper suggests that coastal risk assessments should assume that the probability of sea level rise of at least 0.5 m by 2100 is high, but the possibility of even 2 m cannot be absolutely excluded and sea level will continue to rise beyond 2100 for many more centuries.  Compounding factors such as storm surges and changes in wave patterns need to be taken into account.

It would be a mistake to assume that, because the climate changes projected for New Zealand are relatively lesser in rate and magnitude compared to the rest of the world, adaptation is therefore a less important question for us.  Sea level rise will be at least the global average of change. Effective management of the large range of ecosystems and natural hazards is constrained by our small budgets and pools of expertise to inform decisions, all the more because of our decentralised approach to decision-making in such areas. We are strongly linked to global processes through international policies, technologies, trade and flow of people and goods and services and must be sensitive to this.

There’s much for New Zealand to be concerned with internally in the ongoing process of adaptation. Climate risk assessment should precede new infrastructure development. Difficult conflicts may be associated with the loss of opportunity in, for example, the development of a coastal property because of its vulnerability to future sea level rise. The danger of local councils with limited resources being captured by special interests raises the question of the extent to which binding guidance should be provided to councils by central government on matters of adaptation.

As the selection of scenarios indicates, we can’t be sure what adaptive measures will be required in the future. But we will have no reason to be taken by surprise.

All guns blazing

I well remember a meeting of the Hamilton group of Amnesty International back in the 1990s, when a visitor who lived in the Maldives turned up, wanting to find out more about how AI worked. It wasn’t long before we found out why he was interested, as he told us the story of repression and out-of-sight political prisoners in his country.

One of those prisoners was Mohamed Nasheed, whose party won an election in 2008, ending the 30 years dictatorship which preceded it. He is now President of the Republic of Maldives. It was no easy path to the presidency. His several imprisonments added up to a total of six years, 18 months of which were spent in solitary confinement. And it’s no easier now that he is there. The Maldives, comprising numerous coral islands, is the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural ground level of only 2.3 metres, with the average being only 1.5 metres above sea level. Its vulnerability to climate change is obvious. It’s certainly obvious to Nasheed, and he’s not taking it lying down, as he made very clear in his blog written last year before the Copenhagen conference:

 

“No one in the Maldives is applauding the recent pledge of the G8 nations to try and hold temperature increases to 2 degrees and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 450 parts per million. A few years ago, those might have been laudable goals, but new science makes clear they’re out of date…

“In January 2008, James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, published a series of papers showing that the actual safe limit for carbon in the atmosphere was at most 350 parts per million. Anything higher than that limit, warns Hansen, could seed ‘irreversible, catastrophic effects’ on a global scale…

“For the Maldives, climate change is no vague or distant irritation but a clear and present danger to our survival. But the Maldives is no special case; simply the canary in the world’s coal mine. Neighboring Asian countries like Bangladesh are already suffering from saltwater intrusion as seas rise; Australia and the American southwest are enduring epic drought; forests across western North America are succumbing to pests multiplying in the growing heat. And all of this is with temperature increases of nearly 1 degree — why on earth would we be aiming for 2 degrees?”

He has recently appeared — via video link — at the Hay Festival in the UK. The Guardian’s accounts here and here were enthusiastic.

Appearing  by live video link, Nasheed showed more life and animation in 2D than any of the politicians currently wandering around the site (there’s a lot of former Labour ministers with time on their hands these days) usually manage in the flesh. Where our MPs duck and dive and try to say as little as possible that might upset anyone, Nasheed went in with all guns blazing.

Ed Miliband interviewed Nasheed.  There were several points where his sense of the urgency of the issue was very apparent. When asked about educating people about climate change he declared it is too late for that.

“What we really need is a huge social 60s-style catalystic, dynamic street action. If the people in the US wish to change, it can happen. In the 60s and 70s, they’ve done that.”

But he also expressed uncertainty about the US, considering China and India actually far more receptive to the concept of climate change.

“My sense of China is that they tend to believe in climate change. My sense of the US is that a fair amount of them simply don’t believe in it.”

He noted how, unlike the developed world, India listened to small countries’ fears over the issue. “The refreshing thing about India is they listen to people, certainly they listen to the Maldives.”

Nasheed said countries committed to tackling climate change should press ahead with agreements and emissions reductions regardless of whether they took more recalcitrant nations with them.

“We cannot wait for the lowest common denominator where everyone agrees to doing almost nothing.”

He’s not waiting, like New Zealand, for others to take the lead. The Maldives is embarking on a programme to become the first carbon-neutral country within 10 years. It has three large wind farms under construction and photovoltaic technologies are being developed, although the country is also having to build sea walls to repel the ocean and energy-hungry desalination plants to replace fresh water supplies lost to the sea.

It might look like hoping against hope, but this was his conclusion:

“I believe in human ingenuity. We are not doomed. We can succeed and we must work along those lines.”

Brave words, though there must be times when they become difficult to say.  The Maldives lives on the edge of a slow disaster. We can be grateful for the clarity and persistence with which Nasheed and others like him keep drawing attention to what is happening. But the forces of denial in rich countries are not yet exhausted. Few politicians in power in those countries are willing to speak with like clarity to their populations, and denialist bluster still holds considerable sway among legislators. Nasheed’s concern that the US is not yet ready to face reality is well founded. It is by no means clear that we will act in time to save the Maldives from the ravages of a rising sea.

Note: There’s a short video clip here from the UN Environment Programme in which Nasheed sets out his concerns in very reasonable terms which are his trademark.  This Al Jazeera interview covers more specific ground. I liked his statement in the course of it: “Leaders cannot afford the luxury of ignorance.“