Meeting the objectives of climate resilient development requires society and ecosystems to move over (transition) to a more resilient state?

The new WGII report is out, and reading the SPM it doesn't take long before I find something to disagree with: Meeting the objectives of climate resilient development thereby supporting human, ecosystem and planetary health, as well as human well-being, requires society and ecosystems to move over (transition) to a more resilient state. Firstly the trivia: having to write "move over (transition)" is horrible; get someone to sort out your flow. Disregarding that ugliness, there's the substance: is any kind of fundamental transition to a new state required? I doubt it; though all the words used are so vague that they could mean almost anything. Swapping out fossil fuel infrastructure for renewables/nooks doesn't really meet this description, no matter how much some people would devoutly wish it to be so.

It is kinda funny watching the IPCC folk saying "don't watch that war over there, watch our report on the long term future on the planet". If I were them I'd have delayed releasing it, but bureaucracy doesn't work like that.


Greenhouse gases and “major questions”: Justices to hear argument on EPA’s power to tackle climate change - SCOTUSblog.

* I took the fundamental bit to be "reducing supply too fast will lead to bad price spikes", and I think that's correct; and I see a lot of env folk not understanding it. The rest, meh.


Tom said...

It leaves me wondering what they mean by 'resiliency.' As I have gone on about for a decade, there are two approaches to the energy/climate conundrum. One is subtractive, which is what everyone seems to be aiming for--taking fossil fuels off the table.

But the other is additive--bringing new fuel sources into the mix and laboring to make them more attractive and useful. We're doing that, but in fits and starts.

It is the second approach that I think is more resilient...

b fagan said...

Wikipedia climate alert...

Any IPCC report release leads to denial group silliness, but I found it interesting that it looks like one of the deniers got their editing hooks onto the NIPCC topic - and seems the "Talk" was allowed to be on the article itself.

Here's the denial-based editorializing from the page

"(Note to reader I was reading this article about NIPCC as I am studying environmental science at the OU University. I was surprised to find that NIPCC were referred to as a climate change denial advocacy this is not true. I have deleted this claim. Please be cautious of misinformation on wikipedia there are internet 'trolls' who can use it. It concerns me in this case because NIPCC is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming. This is an admirable misssion as there needs to be some form of quality control on the results of IPCC's scientific investigation into the causes of climate change)"

William M. Connolley said...

Well tut tut to me, and to others: that was four days ago. I've reverted it now; thanks for letting me know.

b fagan said...

Much improved, thanks! I'd seen a comment on NYT's IPCC coverage suggesting people look at the Other Science Reports With Different Conclusions. That made me wonder how the old Not The IPCC was doing.

William M. Connolley said...

They're back! But I didn't have to touch it this time. Because they were dumb enough to this: Message to internet trolls... You are bastards. Your mothers (if you have them should be ashamed of you. I am wholly independent of NIPPC. In the current climate change crisis there is a phenomenon called "Climate chANnge' anxiety mis-information is not going to help. Personally suspect that IPCC have got it wrong. If you believe you have a legitimate claim that NIPCC IS a climate change denial advocacy then set up your own wikipedia page and if I can find it I will review it with an open mind.

b fagan said...

What a thoughtful and well-reasoned argument!

Phil said...

State 1) The atmosphere is a free sewer. Dump any gases you want. No rules. No ownership of results. No cost directly to the dumper.

State 2a) The atmosphere is regulated. A combination of hard limits, subsidies and incentives reduces the amount of dumping.

State 2b) The atmosphere is private property. Need to own or rent a share to dump. Total shares available are adjusted to minimize total harm.

State 2c) The atmosphere is a government tax source. Dump what you want, but will pay taxes based on the amount of dumping. Tax rate is adjusted to minimize total harm.

State 2d) Some combination of the above.

Looks like any State that makes a change to the rules around the atmosphere is different from the earlier State. State 2a has the least change in status, which is where we are today. Also the least effective long term, but the easiest to implement. Might be "good enough", at least for now.

There is a push to link unrelated social changes to climate change. Needs to be discouraged.

Phil said...

> Tom "bringing new fuel sources"

The only new energy source I can think of is fusion. Fusion might or might not be a realistic energy source. We will never know unless we spend a lot of effort... doing new things on a large scale is both expensive and hard to manage...

Or are you talking about energy carriers for renewable energy, such as batteries, hydrogen or synthetic fuels?

William M. Connolley said...

> State 1...2d:

Once I would have agreed. Now I am less sure: renewables may get cheaper fast enough that even my favourite carbon tax may not be needed. As for fusion, see The flower of justice is peace perhaps.

> push to link unrelated social changes to climate change. Needs to be discouraged

But there I do agree.

Phil said...

WMC> "Now I am less sure: renewables may get cheaper fast enough that even my favourite carbon tax may not be needed."

Something, perhaps your favorite carbon tax will likely be needed for the last bit... 20%, 10%, 5% or something like that.

Renewables are unlikely to be cheaper for long distance aviation, for example.

Tom said...

By new sources I was being rather liberal with the adjective. I meant nuclear, solar, wind, 4th gen biofuels.