Hi Roger, I thought of you and your work when I read this op-Ed summary of a new study in species/population loss due to climate change. I’ve not read the original study but from the description it seems the headline is based on the “buisness as usual” emission scenarios….
Roger - just subscribed and watched your presentation. I worked for a dozen years in the US coal industry and totally support your comments on making sure modelling and key scenarios reflect current reality. US thermal coal is down 50% over past 15 or so years and this drop is essentially permanent - coal plants have been shut and decomissioned. I live now in Australia and the same is happening here - albeit somewhat slower. While Chinese coal consumption is still robust (if not growing at the rate of the 90's) it is very clear that global thermal coal usage is in long term decline. IEA forecasts are as good as any to use.
I did a guest university lecture on the basics of decarbonisation earlier this year - highlighted the significant challenges of deep decarboniation and net zero but tried to emphasise that reasonable progress was at least being made in some key areas - power generation and light vehicle transport. Got some interesting feedback that my perceived positive (ie balanced from my viewpoint) position was useful as apparently there is a growing student belief in an inevitable catastrophe.
The PR imperative of highlighting the risk of catastrophy is obvious but overdoing this - especially if not rooted in solid science and logic is potentially counter productive. One wonders if and when the narative will shift to a slightly more positive tone that balances an acknowledgment of progress where appropriate while continuing to emphasising work remaining to be done. Too much inevitable doom and despair is not just bad PR but it corrodes the credibility and standing of governments and elected officials.
Dear Roger. Thank you for all your work; it is a fascinating website, and well-worth the subscription.
You and other writers have noted the injustice of the developed world seeking to dictate energy policy to developing countries, including many in Africa, with governmental and private sector financial institutions imposing limits or outright bans on funding for (e..g.) coal mining/power generation.
My question is not about the morality or otherwise of these policies, it is about the likely effect on the various climate pathway projections (RCPs) should the developing world ignore this pressure, instead deciding to take (e.g.) Chinese funding and going ahead with coal generation of the power they demand.
If they did, would this not blow a big hole in what you clearly see as encouraging signs that actual world emissions data is trending towards more comfortable scenarios than the very scary RCP 8.5?
Prima facie it would seem to me that it does, based on a (very approximate) scenario where c.25% of world population (say 2 bn out of a total 8 bn, with China and India included in the developing category) consume, say, around half of all electricity generated. If the developing world’s 6 bn people then decide to go their own way, subsequently mining and burning all this coal, the world will surely record a monumental increase in emissions.
My numbers are very inadequate I realise, but they are hopefully representative of the scale of the potential problem. I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough.
PS You may recognise the scenario from Steve Koonin’s book, however I think there he is more concerned with the ethics of the problem.
Really like your last comments re good science will win in the end. Absolutely agree. My concern is that in the interim we will make decisions off of “bad science”, that could create more long term problems. We are already seeing this happen re fertilizer usage and food production. What happened in Sri Lanka could have been avoided.
This is always the challenge -- science is self-correcting, but is not always efficiently so. Climate scenarios offer an important and visible test of this process.
Hey Dr. Pielke, I've really been enjoying your Substack, I find that I'm learning a lot!
Something I noticed streaks of in your work, and especially in David Wallace-Well's recent "Beyond Catastrophe" piece, is that it's really comfortable to imagine the extremes of possible futures and harder to imagine messier "middle" futures. It seems we're presented with two main opinions of how climate change will affect the future: either, it's not really a big deal (Bjorn Lomborg-esque views) or the apocalypse is imminent, get ready to do your best Mad Max. But in reality, as you and Justin Ritchie and others have pointed out, hey, that's not our most likely future, it's not even a plausible future. Now, we're actually headed away from the comfortable dichotomy of "normal vs. apocalypse" to a messier third option that's even more uncertain, where civilization endures but has to change and call audibles depending on what situations may arise over the coming decades. Public perceptions might not just be limited by the inertia of RCP8.5, it seems that it's hard to break the paradigm and imagine a world that's not apocalyptic but different enough where's it's not quite normal either. Is my thinking headed in the right direction on this? Thanks!
Nov 30, 2022·edited Nov 30, 2022Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
thanks Roger. this post prompts me to ask a question ive been meaning to ask when reading your work for a while. What is your view on those who argue we are at risk of triggering 'runaway climate change'? The idea that negative feedback loops (ice loss, permafrost, fires etc) could trigger processors that lead to accelerated climate forcing etc and thus far more dramatic climate impacts. Suppose, for example, over next few decades we track more or less along SSP2-4.5, would humanity be at some risk (what risk) of this scenario? And if so, could this have 'apocalyptic' outcomes in the long run? How do you assess this kind of risk in general?
Jonathan, A great Q and one I will add to the queue for a future post. More than 20 years ago (geez) I participated in the original NAS committee that produced an excellent report on "abrupt climate change." You can see our paper in Science summarizing that report here: https://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/lev/ESSgc/2005.pdf
I still think it is a very good representation of the issue. More to come ...
Hi Roger, I thought of you and your work when I read this op-Ed summary of a new study in species/population loss due to climate change. I’ve not read the original study but from the description it seems the headline is based on the “buisness as usual” emission scenarios….
https://theconversation.com/children-born-today-will-see-literally-thousands-of-animals-disappear-in-their-lifetime-as-global-food-webs-collapse-196286?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2019%202022%20-%202496225018&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%2019%202022%20-%202496225018+CID_ef23943dc89169120eb86b81d5ddc079&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Children%20born%20today%20will%20see%20literally%20thousands%20of%20animals%20disappear%20in%20their%20lifetime%20as%20global%20food%20webs%20collapse
Roger - just subscribed and watched your presentation. I worked for a dozen years in the US coal industry and totally support your comments on making sure modelling and key scenarios reflect current reality. US thermal coal is down 50% over past 15 or so years and this drop is essentially permanent - coal plants have been shut and decomissioned. I live now in Australia and the same is happening here - albeit somewhat slower. While Chinese coal consumption is still robust (if not growing at the rate of the 90's) it is very clear that global thermal coal usage is in long term decline. IEA forecasts are as good as any to use.
I did a guest university lecture on the basics of decarbonisation earlier this year - highlighted the significant challenges of deep decarboniation and net zero but tried to emphasise that reasonable progress was at least being made in some key areas - power generation and light vehicle transport. Got some interesting feedback that my perceived positive (ie balanced from my viewpoint) position was useful as apparently there is a growing student belief in an inevitable catastrophe.
The PR imperative of highlighting the risk of catastrophy is obvious but overdoing this - especially if not rooted in solid science and logic is potentially counter productive. One wonders if and when the narative will shift to a slightly more positive tone that balances an acknowledgment of progress where appropriate while continuing to emphasising work remaining to be done. Too much inevitable doom and despair is not just bad PR but it corrodes the credibility and standing of governments and elected officials.
Dear Roger. Thank you for all your work; it is a fascinating website, and well-worth the subscription.
You and other writers have noted the injustice of the developed world seeking to dictate energy policy to developing countries, including many in Africa, with governmental and private sector financial institutions imposing limits or outright bans on funding for (e..g.) coal mining/power generation.
My question is not about the morality or otherwise of these policies, it is about the likely effect on the various climate pathway projections (RCPs) should the developing world ignore this pressure, instead deciding to take (e.g.) Chinese funding and going ahead with coal generation of the power they demand.
If they did, would this not blow a big hole in what you clearly see as encouraging signs that actual world emissions data is trending towards more comfortable scenarios than the very scary RCP 8.5?
Prima facie it would seem to me that it does, based on a (very approximate) scenario where c.25% of world population (say 2 bn out of a total 8 bn, with China and India included in the developing category) consume, say, around half of all electricity generated. If the developing world’s 6 bn people then decide to go their own way, subsequently mining and burning all this coal, the world will surely record a monumental increase in emissions.
My numbers are very inadequate I realise, but they are hopefully representative of the scale of the potential problem. I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough.
PS You may recognise the scenario from Steve Koonin’s book, however I think there he is more concerned with the ethics of the problem.
Really like your last comments re good science will win in the end. Absolutely agree. My concern is that in the interim we will make decisions off of “bad science”, that could create more long term problems. We are already seeing this happen re fertilizer usage and food production. What happened in Sri Lanka could have been avoided.
Yes, agreed.
This is always the challenge -- science is self-correcting, but is not always efficiently so. Climate scenarios offer an important and visible test of this process.
Hey Dr. Pielke, I've really been enjoying your Substack, I find that I'm learning a lot!
Something I noticed streaks of in your work, and especially in David Wallace-Well's recent "Beyond Catastrophe" piece, is that it's really comfortable to imagine the extremes of possible futures and harder to imagine messier "middle" futures. It seems we're presented with two main opinions of how climate change will affect the future: either, it's not really a big deal (Bjorn Lomborg-esque views) or the apocalypse is imminent, get ready to do your best Mad Max. But in reality, as you and Justin Ritchie and others have pointed out, hey, that's not our most likely future, it's not even a plausible future. Now, we're actually headed away from the comfortable dichotomy of "normal vs. apocalypse" to a messier third option that's even more uncertain, where civilization endures but has to change and call audibles depending on what situations may arise over the coming decades. Public perceptions might not just be limited by the inertia of RCP8.5, it seems that it's hard to break the paradigm and imagine a world that's not apocalyptic but different enough where's it's not quite normal either. Is my thinking headed in the right direction on this? Thanks!
Jack, Very well said!
thanks Roger. this post prompts me to ask a question ive been meaning to ask when reading your work for a while. What is your view on those who argue we are at risk of triggering 'runaway climate change'? The idea that negative feedback loops (ice loss, permafrost, fires etc) could trigger processors that lead to accelerated climate forcing etc and thus far more dramatic climate impacts. Suppose, for example, over next few decades we track more or less along SSP2-4.5, would humanity be at some risk (what risk) of this scenario? And if so, could this have 'apocalyptic' outcomes in the long run? How do you assess this kind of risk in general?
Jonathan, A great Q and one I will add to the queue for a future post. More than 20 years ago (geez) I participated in the original NAS committee that produced an excellent report on "abrupt climate change." You can see our paper in Science summarizing that report here: https://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/lev/ESSgc/2005.pdf
I still think it is a very good representation of the issue. More to come ...
thanks for that RPJ - will read with interest and look forward to the future post as well