There appears to be a breath of fresh air wafting through the environmental community, reflected in Degrees of Risk: Defining a Risk Management Framework for Climate Security, a new report from the Britain-based nonprofit group Third Generation Environmentalism, or E3G. The report is enthusiastically endorsed by Bill Becker, the head of the Presidential Climate Action Plan, in a guest post at Climateprogress.  What’s refreshing is that the building human influence on the climate system is not being portrayed definitively as an unfolding catastrophe, with present-day events cast as the reason for action. That approach, from Katrina forward, was bound to fail, given the variability of conditions year to year and persistent (and non-manufactured) uncertainty surrounding some of the most consequential impacts (for instance, the pace and extent of warming and sea-level rise in this century).  The report takes the approach used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its “reasons for concern” section and the diagram known as “burning embers” — both of which essentially illustrate how rising temperatures equate with rising risk in a variety of areas that matter to society.  The report also casts the underlying challenge of moving beyond deep dependence on conventionally burned fossil fuels for what it is:  Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels is a marathon, not a sprint. Countries must establish resilient and flexible regimes at national and international levels to avoid failures in the future.  Becker’s summary of the report contains one potentially confusing line. Where he writes that “nations must also work now on ‘crash mitigation programs’ to reduce the danger and impact of catastrophic climate disruption,’ the report actually calls this “contingency crash mitigation planning” (my italics):  A growing body of evidence suggests that vulnerability to catastrophic climate impacts might be higher than expected. As it is not possible to adapt to some of the worst-case scenarios, it is vital to maintain a capability to implement a crash mitigation program should they occur. Examples might include geo-engineering of mechanisms to either absorb carbon dioxide or reflect heat away from Earth’s surface, rapid diffusion of nuclear technology, and rapid deployment of clean energy technologies. However nations choose to implement a crash program, one thing is clear, a crash approach, which necessitates precipitous changes in emissions and infrastructure, will be much more economically disruptive than a proactive approach which can be phased in over a longer time horizon.  I wouldn’t mind seeing a source for that definitive description of the higher cost in moving very aggressively should evidence pointing toward worst-case outcomes solidify.  There are other weak spots. But overall, the focus on resilience, the push for a global boost in basic inquiry aimed at advancing non-polluting energy sources, improved monitoring and a flexible policy that evolves as information flows seems a good fit for the challenges ahead.  And the report, in a big shift from 20th-century strategies, puts little emphasis on lofty but unrealistic approaches relying on global governance or carbon pricing as the means to transform the world’s energy menu.  The authors follow the lead set by analysts including the late Stephen H. Schneider and the sometime partners Gary Yohe of Wesleyan and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.  Specifically, the E3G team recommends an “A, B, C” framework for action focused on resilience and building the capacity to respond should worst-case outcomes start to look more likely:  • Aim to stay below 2°C (3.6°F) of warming • Build and budget assuming 3-4°C (5.4-7.2°F) of warming • Contingency plan for 5-7°C (9-12.6°F) of warming  The report has 10 core recommendations, the first being that countries need to settle for themselves where an acceptable threshold of risk lies. Only then can they convene to hash out global goals and contributions to achieving them.  I see this as a weak spot, in that this kind of analysis, which all nations do mainly behind closed doors, is more likely to generate division in treaty talks than accord. This is particularly true because no nation will be considering human-driven climate change in isolation, but pitting it against energy security and other real-time risks. If anything, the value in such an exercise lies in how it crystallizes the limitations of treaty-making as a meaningful mechanism for limiting warming.  The second recommendation is a no-brainer, in large part because it makes sense for many reasons (the reasons so well articulated by Richard Smalley):  Increase investment in transformational technology R&D Limiting average global temperature increases to below 2°C will require rapidly accelerated innovation and diffusion of clean energy technologies in both developed and developing countries. In addition, higher levels of cooperative investment in RD&D in low carbon energy technologies and solutions would hedge against the risks of under-delivery in key mitigation areas such as energy efficiency and preventing deforestation.  Current national and international innovation programs are not sufficient to effectively manage the risk of policy failure or higher ranges of climate sensitivity. Public sector energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in major economies has fallen by up to half over the last 25 years. Nations should look to increase their clean energy RD&D spending by five times by 2020. In addition, they should designate a share – at least 10-20 percent – of increased RD&D spending to cooperative activity with developing countries and develop a range of international cooperation mechanisms to accelerate the development and diffusion of mitigation and adaptation technologies.  I hope you’ll dive in — the full text is here — and help identify the most promising, or problematic, ideas.
In a new climate report, an environmental group focuses on innovation, adaptation and building the capacity for aggressive responses.