Forty Days to Save the World (Part 3) : Fire

Over the years we've been learning what global heating can do to the climate and the weather: more violent storms, forest fires, flooding, drought.  Melting of polar ice, melting of permafrost, sea level rise swamping coasts.  Acidification and other big problems in the oceans, plus the possible shift of major ocean currents.

We've learned about consequences of a general rise in global temperature, such as disease-bearing insects moving northward, threats to the survival of entire species of plants and animals, for which the polar bear has become the poster child.  (Joined perhaps by the snow leopard.)

But in learning about these and the possible social, political and economic ramifications, the most direct consequence has not been so widely discussed.  That is, that global heating means: heat.

But a study published in Nature dealt with at least the economic consequences of heat--that is, of the relationship of hot temperatures and productivity.  As one report put it: The warmer it gets, the less productive a country’s economy will likely be.

Economic performance, the UC Berkeley and Stanford researchers found, tends to decrease when the average temp rises above 55F.  They correlated the countries where this would be so if global heating continues "unmitigated": 77 percent of countries in the world would see a drop in per capita incomes relative to current levels, with global incomes falling 23 percent by 2100.  That's a 23% drop in this century.

The lesson that an economics reporter at the LA Times takes from this is that the cost of "mitigation" (dealing with the causes of global heating by cutting back carbon pollution severely) now has an economic justification: it will cost more not to do it than to do it.

Whether this particular study is valid or not, it's striking that it tries to quantify only the factor of heat and its effect on human beings, the factor that is seldom discussed directly.  Is that because it is actually the scariest prospect of all?

Because ultimately it is about more than economics.  It's about incessant extreme heat that threatens life, that threatens the ability to think clearly, to control emotions, to move physically.

A different report, done by researchers at three universities and published last week in Nature Climate Change (in the words of the Washington Post story) "warned that Persian Gulf cities could experience extreme summer temperatures that are literally too hot for human survival. But scientists say climate change will inevitably lead to hotter, longer heat waves and higher rates of heat-related deaths across large swaths of the planet."

This study surprised even some climate experts by showing that such heat is possible in this century.  But once again, the study suggests that dealing with the causes of global heating--as proposed for the Paris conference--could limit the heat.

heat wave in Pakistan that killed hundreds

Yet another report cited in the Guardian confirmed that: "South-east Asia over the next three decades could lose 16% of its labour capacity due to rising heat stress, which could cause absenteeism due to dizziness, fatigue, nausea and even death in extreme cases, the British firm Verisk Maplecroft said."

All of this follows a study issued in July officially by the EPA combines economic analysis with ecological and other effects to show the dire cost of global heating left unchecked.  It includes killer heat waves in the US as well as elsewhere.  A report issued in May concluded:

The risk of exposure to extreme heat could be as much as six times higher for the average U.S. citizens by the year 2070, compared with levels experienced in the last century, researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the City University of New York found. The projected change carries significant implications for Americans’ health, as extreme heat kills more people than any other weather-related event, the study’s authors report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

When writers like Eric Holthaus at Slate suggest that we're doing enough on addressing causes of global warming to avoid the worst outcomes, and now we should concentrate on dealing with the effects ("adaptation", in the jargon), it sets up truly nightmarish possibilities.  Like the dwindling number of people who can afford it, hunkering behind more and more fossil fuel-driven air conditioning, "adapting" while the future is condemned.

This is precisely why I use the terminology of causes and effects--because they are not separate, and must never be separated.  The terminology of "mitigation" and "adaptation," besides being imprecise, abstract and obscure, are fatally flawed because they are not linked, as if one has nothing to do with the other.

 But in reality the causes and effects are always linked. The causes and effects of the climate crisis must each be addressed, and they must both be addressed.  Before the heat gets to us, and we end in violence, and it's the fire this time.

In related news, the UN continues to raise the stakes for Paris with a report that quantifies likely severe damage to the world's food supply caused by global heating, which could send an additional 600 million people into malnutrition by 2080.

The new Prime Minister of Canada was sworn in, as was his Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna  (the Climate Change part was restored after the previous government dropped it.)

 According to the CBC report: "The appointment comes less than a month before the United Nations conference on climate change in Paris that begins November 30. McKenna said Canada will come up with a plan for a "huge reduction in emissions" and will play a "constructive role" with governments."

So it is less than thirty days until the Paris conference begins.  And less than forty days all told to save the world.