|
Howdy !
It's me Scarlett !
This week we have 2 categories of topics which are connected with 'Aging Society, Climate Change & Envirnment'. Do not be obsessed with all the articles too much. Just pick some articles what you have interests and prepare your opinions related to them. :)
Detailed lists are as follows.
◈ Aging society & Healthcare :
---- Millennials are set to overtake Baby Boomers as America's biggest generation
---- 7 Ways Businesses Can Surf the Silver Tsunami and Survive
---- Can the World Sustain 9 Billion People by 2050?
◈ Climate Change & Environment :
---- Climate change: 'Hothouse Earth' risks even if CO2 emissions slashed
---- Humans Are About to Unleash an Irreversible "Hothouse Earth", Scientists Warn
---- Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state
---- Six Tough Questions About Climate Change
Hope you enjoy the topics
With luv
Scarlett
------------------------------------
Millennials are set to overtake Baby Boomers
as America's biggest generation
06 Mar 2018/ Richard Fry/ Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center
Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.
The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.
Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).
Here’s a look at some generational projections:
Millennials
With immigration adding more numbers to this group than any other, the Millennial population is projected to peak in 2036 at 76.2 million. Thereafter, the oldest Millennial will be at least 56 years of age and mortality is projected to outweigh net immigration. By 2050 there will be a projected 74.3 million Millennials.
Generation X
1. For a few more years, Gen Xers are projected to remain the “middle child” of generations – caught between two larger generations, the Millennials and the Boomers. Gen Xers were born during a period when Americans were having fewer children than in later decades. When Gen Xers were born, births averaged around 3.4 million per year, compared with the 3.9 million annual rate from 1981 to 1996 when the Millennials were born.
2. Though the oldest Gen Xer was 51 in 2016, the Gen X population is projected to grow for a couple more years. Gen Xers are projected to outnumber Boomers in 2028, when there will be 64.6 million Gen Xers and 63.7 million Boomers. The Census Bureau projects that the Gen X population will peak at 65.8 million in 2018.
Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation.There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million.
Note: This post was originally published on Jan. 16, 2015. It was updated April 25, 2016, under the headline “Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation,” which reflected the Center’s definition of Millennials at the time (born between 1981 and 1997). This third version reflects the Center’s newly revised definition, under which Millennial births end in 1996.
Article source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/millennials-projected-to-overtake-baby-boomers-as-america-s-largest-generation
------------------------------------
7 Ways Businesses Can Surf the Silver Tsunami and Survive
By Janice Celeste/ 09/08/2015 05:03
The Silver Tsunami refers to the take-over of an aging workforce. By 2020, 25 percent of the United States workforce will be comprised of workers age 55 and older (The Bureau of Labor Statistics). For the first time in history, there will be four generations of employees in the workforce. Older Americans are coming out of retirement, opting out of retirement all together, and people are living longer. In 1950, there were only 2,300 people who made it to the age of 100. It is predicted that by 2050, there will be 601,000 centenarians in the United States alone and 3.6 million globally.
Dr. James Johnson, Professor of Entrepreneurship and national speaker with WeSpeakWorldwide.com speaks to business groups throughout the United States as an expert on the topic of disruptive demographics. “We are in the middle of a profound demographic transformation in the United States,” says Johnson. “When an aging population sets-in everything has to change.”
In the United States, there are currently far less 25-year-olds than there are 45 to 64-year-olds (2010 Census). If businesses want to survive, they have to stop the trend of hiring only endangered 20-somethings and start seeking out older workers to fill empty positions. Hiring workers in their golden years means making some changes for an aging workforce but don’t let the gray hair fool you; today’s older workers are often physically fit and able to handle challenges in the workplace with minimum accommodations.
PROS & CONS of Older Workers (And there are more pros than cons)
Pros
- Older employees have invaluable work experience and work ethic.
- They are usually able and willing to mentor younger, less experienced employees.
- They can take on part time or seasonal work. In fact, some prefer it.
- They are reliable and punctual.
- Older employees have a serious commitment to work, and they are loyal.
- Many times, they already have established long-term networks of clients and contacts.
Cons
- Older employees might be set in their ways and sometimes are not as adept at new technology as their younger counterparts.
- They may need additional training and they may lack flexibility.
- They might be old enough to have one or more chronic diseases, which makes them more expensive when it comes to medical care and insurance.
- They prefer flexible hours.
(Source: Workforce Training and Administrative Services)
“Right now work organizes our lives, everything centers around work but in the future, life will organize work. If you have family members to take care of, you’re going to have to squeeze work in,” said Johnson. “We’re talking about a change in living arrangements, family structure and alike that is going to usher all kinds of challenges in the work environment. We have to have work places that are far more agile and flexible than what we have today.”
Flexible hours are key. “Baby boomers are dealing with a triple-whammy. They are dealing with their own mortality, elder care responsibilities [of an aging parent] and are [often] raising grandchildren,” said Johnson. Businesses that offer flexible hours will benefit the most. Millennials, also known as Generation Y, value workplaces that encourage freedom and flexibility as well. It’s a win-win for every generation. But what about the benefit to businesses? Businesses that offer flexible hours, retain key dedicated employees, gain increased productivity, decreased absenteeism, and decreased turnover, all which adds savings to the bottom-line (Entrepreneur magazine, 6/4/2006).
“In the future, you have to figure out how to become the employer of choice,” said Johnson. “Where everybody wants to work for you and nobody wants to leave.” With 2020, right around the corner, businesses have to act now to implement the type of change that will keep them afloat when the senior super wave hits.
What Businesses Must Do to Prepare
1. Flextime & PTO. Allow a flexible work schedule and generous use of leave time.
2. Telecommute. Allow employees the option to work from home.
3. Job redesign. Create new positions or adapt old ones to better suit aging employees’ skills.
4. Retrofit workplace ergonomics. Consider implementing an age-friendly work environment. i.e. Instead of having overhead storage, put storage at eye level.
5. Education. Implement training that will benefit older workers. i.e., technology-based education.
6. Management training. Require aging workforce management training for supervisors and include education on managing a multigenerational workforce.
7. Taskforce. Plan strategies for hiring and retaining older workers.
Companies to Benchmark
When seeking a business example to follow, you don’t have to look far. Just look at what some of the top companies are doing on the “2015 Fortune’s Best Companies to Work For“ list. The perks and benefits these companies offer, not only make an attractive work environment for older employees but attracts the best and the brightest of all employable age groups. These companies not only have the best candidates to choose from but they retain the best employees as well. There’s one common theme visible with the top companies on Fortune’s list, each company is doing whatever it can to make life easier for their employees, which is attractive to both the old and young job seeker.
Of course, every company can’t afford to do what Google does for their workers but there are 100 companies on the Fortune’s Best list, surely you can gain some ideas even if you start on a smaller scale. The workplace is evolving, hopefully for the better. Is your company ready to catch the wave?
Janice Celeste travels and speaks at conferences on the subject of multi-generational management. You can find out more information at WeSpeakWorldwide.com.
Article source : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/7-ways-businesses-can-surf-the-silver-tsunami-and-survive_b_8094412.html
------------------------------------
Can the World Sustain 9 Billion People by 2050?
Over a year ago / by Philip Perry
Large crowd of People
The world’s population is topsy-turvy, and its exponential and uneven growth could have disastrous consequences if we aren’t ready for it. Humanity recently hit a benchmark, a population of 7.9 billion in 2013. It is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030, and 9.6 billion by 2050. If that weren’t enough, consider 11.2 billion in 2100. Most of the growth is supposed to come from nine specific countries: India, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria, the United States, and Indonesia.
It isn’t fertility that is driving growth, but rather longer lifespans. World population growth peaked in the 1960s, and has been dropping steadily since the '70s. 1.24% was the growth rate a decade ago, annually. Today, it is 1.18% per year. Populations in developed countries have slowed to a trickle. Here, it has gotten too expensive to have a child for a large segment of the populace, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession, when young people have to invest a lot of time in education and building a career, spending their most fertile years in lecture halls and office cubicles. Although overall, fertility has been dropping worldwide, the report says researchers used the "low-variant" scenario of population growth. It could be higher.
World population growth by continent.
Meanwhile, the enormous baby boomer generation is aging, and public health officials warn that a “Silver Tsunami” is coming. Worldwide, those age 60 and over are expected to double by 2050, and triple by 2100. As workers age, fewer young people are around to replace them, and that means less taxpayers for Medicare and abroad, for socialized medicine. In Europe, a staggering 34% of the population is projected to be over 60 by 2050. What’s more, Europe’s population is forecast to plummet 14%. It is already struggling, as is Japan, to provide for its aging population. But the birth deficit is likely to exacerbate the problem.
In the U.S., the number of Alzheimer’s patients alone is expected to bankrupt Medicare, if no cure is found, and the program remains as it is today. "Developed countries have largely painted themselves into a corner now," according to Carl Haub. He is the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. The robot revolution may not come soon enough.
Many developed nations are struggling to support an aging population.
According to a U.N. report, most of the growth will come from developing countries, with over half projected to take place in Africa, the poorest continent financially, whose resources are already under pressure. 15 highly fertile countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to increase the number of children per woman at a rate of a little over five per cent, or five per female. Nigeria’s population will likely surpass that of the U.S. by 2050, becoming the third largest in terms of demographics.
The population in developed countries is expected to remain unchanged, holding steady at 1.3 billion. Some developing countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, India, and China are seeing a swift fall in the average number of children per woman, which is expected to continue. This may be due to better economic prospects. We often think of China as the world’s most populous nation, but India is set to reach them by 2022, when both nations will contain 1.45 billion citizens. Afterward, India is predicted to surpass China. As India’s population grows, China’s will shrink.
India’s population is expected to surpass China’s by 2022.
As far as life expectancy, it is expected to increase in both developed and developing nations. Globally, life expectancy will likely be 76 years on average in the 2045-2050 period. It will reach 82 years of age in 2095-2100, if nothing changes. Nearing the end of the century, those in developing nations could expect to live to 81, while in developed nations, 89 will be the norm. Yet, there are concerns that the developing world will suffer even more than today due to this phenomenon.
“The concentration of population growth in the poorest countries presents its own set of challenges, making it more difficult to eradicate poverty and inequality, to combat hunger and malnutrition, and to expand educational enrollment and health systems,” according to John Wilmoth. He is the Director of the Population Division in the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Another worry is resource depletion. Minerals, fossil fuels, timber, and water may become scarce in several regions of the world. Since wars are often fought over resources, and water use is expected to increase 70-90% by mid-century, without improved farming methods and smarter use, water may become the next oil, in terms of driving nations into violent conflict. The world’s water in certain regions is already strained. India and China for instance have already fought two wars over water claims.
Climate change is also likely to eat up more arable land, contributing to fears of food scarcity, as well as the loss of biodiversity, which is likely to occur at a faster rate. To help tamp down the world population, UN researchers suggest investing in reproductive health and family planning, particularly in developing nations.
This report was made possible by 233 countries providing demographic data, as well as 2010 population censuses.
To learn how the world’s population got to this point, click here:
Article source : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/can-the-world-sustain-9-billion-people-by-2050
------------------------------------
< Aging society & Healthcare Questions >
< Aging Population and job >
Q1. Should people of between 50 and 55 be forced to retire from their jobs in order to make way for younger workers?
Q2. In most countries the legal retirement age for men is five years older than for women, even though women live longer than men on average. Why do you think this is? Is this fair, or should it be changed?
Q3. If people are still able to (and want to) work, should they have to retire when the reach a certain age?
Q4. Are there many things that the old can teach the young or are they hopelessly out of touch by the time they reach a certain age?
< Basics of Aging Population >
Q1. How old is "old"?
Q2. How do you feel about your parents growing older?
Q3. Some people say that youth is a state of mind, do you agree?
Q4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of getting older?
Q5. Does your culture respect the elderly or do they ignore them and house them somewhere?
Q6. Some people say that Western culture values young people more than old people. Do you believe this to be true? Why/Why not?
< Aging Population and challenges >
Q1. Many countries are facing the problem of an "aging population", i.e. there will soon be more old people than young people. What problems will this cause? What can be done to prepare for them?
Q2. When you compare different generations in your family or circle of friends, do you notice that people live longer and in better health now? If so, in what ways is it noticeable?
Q3. Although women live longer than men, it is sometimes said that men "age" better than women. What do you think?
Q4. What types of advice do you think the elderly should be expected to give the young?
Q5. The word "ageism" has been invented to describe the discrimination against older people. In what ways do you think people discriminate against older people?
< Anti-aging >
Q1. What do you think about elderly women who get cosmetic surgery to make themselves look younger?
Q2. Would you go to a doctor that specializes in helping you age better or more slowly?
Q3. Ageing better will require that lifestyle changes (for example, increased exercise, improved diet, decreased TV watching) be made earlier in your life to make a significant impact. How much would you be willing to change now to improve your life when you are much older?
------------------------------------
Climate change: 'Hothouse Earth' risks
even if CO2 emissions slashed
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent / 6 August 2018
It may sound like the title of a low budget sci-fi movie, but for planetary scientists, "Hothouse Earth" is a deadly serious concept.
Researchers believe we could soon cross a threshold leading to boiling hot temperatures and towering seas in the centuries to come.
Even if countries succeed in meeting their CO2 targets, we could still lurch on to this "irreversible pathway".
Their study shows it could happen if global temperatures rise by 2C.
An international team of climate researchers, writing in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says the warming expected in the next few decades could turn some of the Earth's natural forces - that currently protect us - into our enemies.
- Human actions boosted heatwave odds
- The woman who found a new threat in plastic
- Young will pick up 'climate change bill'
Each year the Earth's forests, oceans and land soak up about 4.5 billion tonnes of carbon that would otherwise end up in our atmosphere adding to temperatures.
But as the world experiences warming, these carbon sinks could become sources of carbon and make the problems of climate change significantly worse.
So whether it is the permafrost in northern latitudes that now holds millions of tonnes of warming gases, or the Amazon rainforest, the fear is that the closer we get to 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels, the greater the chances that these natural allies will spew out more carbon than they currently now take in.
Back in 2015, governments of the world committed themselves to keeping temperature rises well below 2 degrees, and to strive to keep them under 1.5. According to the authors, the current plans to cut carbon may not be enough if their analysis is correct.
"What we are saying is that when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself," co-author Prof Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, told BBC News.
"We are the ones in control right now, but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe. We totally hand over our fate to an Earth system that starts rolling out of equilibrium."
Currently, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree above pre-industrial levels and they are rising by around 0.17C per decade.
In their new study the authors looked at 10 natural systems, which they term "feedback processes".
Right now, these help humanity to avoid the worst impacts of carbon and temperature rises, and include forests, Arctic sea-ice, and methane hydrates on the ocean floor.
The worry is that if one of these systems tips over and starts pushing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, the rest could follow like a row of dominoes.
What exactly is a Hothouse Earth scenario?
In short, it's not good.
According to the research paper, crossing into a Hothouse Earth period would see a higher global temperature than at any time in the past 1.2 million years.
The climate might stabilise with 4-5 degrees C of warming above the pre-industrial age. Thanks to the melting of ice sheets, the seas could be 10-60 metres higher than now.
Essentially, this would mean that some parts of the Earth would become uninhabitable.
The impacts would be "massive, sometimes abrupt and undoubtedly disruptive," say the authors.
The only upside, if you can call it that, is that the worst impacts may not be felt for a century or two. The downside is that we wouldn't really be able to do anything about it, once it starts.
Are the current heatwaves in the UK and Europe evidence of a Hothouse Earth?
The authors say the extreme weather events we are seeing right now around the world cannot be immediately associated with the risk of passing 2 degrees C.
However, they argue that it may be evidence that the Earth is more sensitive to warming than previously thought.
"One should learn from these extreme events and take these as a piece of evidence that we should be even more cautious," said Prof Rockström.
"It may support the conclusion that if this can happen at one degree, then we should at least not be surprised or too dismissive of conclusions that things can happen more abruptly than we previously thought."
Surely we've known about these risks before?
What these authors are saying is that up to now, we've underestimated the power and sensitivity of natural systems.
People have been thinking that climate change would be a global emergency for everyone if temperatures rose 3-4 degrees by the end of this century.
But this paper argues that beyond 2 degrees, there is a significant risk of turning natural systems - that presently help keep temperatures down - into massive sources of carbon that would put us on an "irreversible pathway" to a world that is 4-5 degrees warmer than before the industrial revolution.
Any good news here at all?
Surprisingly, yes!
We can avoid the hothouse scenario but it's going to take a fundamental re-adjustment of our relationship with the planet.
"Climate and other global changes show us that we humans are impacting the Earth system at the global level. This means that we as a global community can also manage our relationship with the system to influence future planetary conditions.
"This study identifies some of the levers that can be used to do so," says co-author Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen.
So not only are we going to have to stop burning fossil fuels by the middle of this century, we are going to have to get very busy with planting trees, protecting forests, working out how to block the Sun's rays and developing machines to suck carbon out of the air.
The authors say a total re-orientation of human values, equity, behaviour and technologies is required. We must all become stewards of the Earth.
What do other scientists say?
Some say the authors of this paper are too extreme. Many others say their conclusions are sound.
"As a result of human impacts on climate, the new paper argues that we've gone beyond any chance of the Earth cooling 'of its own accord'," said Dr Phil Williamson from the University of East Anglia, UK.
"Together these effects could add an extra half a degree Celsius by the end of the century to the warming that we are directly responsible for ‒ thereby crossing thresholds and tipping points that seem likely to occur around 2 degrees C, and committing the planet to irreversible further change, as Hothouse Earth."
Others are concerned that the authors' faith in humanity to grasp the serious nature of the problem is misplaced.
"Given the evidence of human history, this would seem a naive hope," said Prof Chris Rapley, from University College London.
"At a time of the widespread rise of right-wing populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as 'cosmopolitan elites' and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable 'intermediate state' must surely be close to zero."
Article source : https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45084144
------------------------------------
Humans Are About to Unleash an Irreversible "Hothouse Earth", Scientists Warn
The point of no return.
PETER DOCKRILL/ 7 AUG 2018
The coasts are gone. The waves crash high into what were once mountains. Many have perished, for food is scarce, and the deadly heat is inescapable.
This bleak future scenario – called a "Hothouse Earth" – could be realised sooner than we think, scientists warn, if the planet breaches a pivotal climate threshold from which there may ultimately be no coming back.
The worst part? Scientists say we could exceed this threshold even if we meet the carbon emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement – and manage to keep global temperatures to 2°C above pre-Industrial levels.
Achieving that goal would be a global success story. But it might not be the end of the story.
"Human emissions of greenhouse gas are not the sole determinant of temperature on Earth," says Earth system scientist Will Steffen from the Australian National University.
"Our study suggests that human-induced global warming of 2°C may trigger other Earth system processes, often called 'feedbacks', that can drive further warming – even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases."
In a new perspective study, Steffen and an international team of researchers outline a number of these 'positive feedback' systems that exist on Earth and can "amplify a perturbation and drive a transition to a different state".
In science, negative feedback systems maintain equilibrium in a given setting, but positive feedback systems do the opposite – exacerbating changes that are already underway.
One example is permafrost thaw. As the world gets hotter due to heat-trapping carbon emissions, there's worrying evidence that melting permafrost soils are releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere – making a bad situation potentially catastrophic.
That's just one example the new study looks at, in addition to several others, including the loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor, weakening land and ocean carbon sinks, and increasing bacterial respiration in the oceans.
None of these trends are looking good, and the team says as the world gets hotter, hitting 2°C could well be the point where it becomes difficult or impossible to reverse these dangerous feedback loops.
"These tipping elements can potentially act like a row of dominoes," explains co-author Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre in Sweden.
"Once one is pushed over, it pushes Earth towards another… Places on Earth will become uninhabitable if 'Hothouse Earth' becomes the reality."
(Stockholm Resilience Centre)
The researchers are eager to emphasise that it's impossible to say for sure whether a global temperature rise of 2°C above pre-Industrial levels is the exact point we'd pass the threshold – as we're in uncharted territory here.
But the study is designed to point out that the less-optimistic goal of the Paris Agreement may not be the safe haven or environmental 'truce' many assumed it was – as by then it may already be too late, with human activity having triggered numerous runaway effects beyond our control.
"We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2°C warmer than the pre-Industrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will 'want' to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions," one of the team, Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, told The Guardian.
So what's the answer? Well – apart from more holistic research to refine our understanding of where and when this threshold to catastrophe is located – nothing short of a complete reimagining of our role on (and relationship to) Planet Earth.
"Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilise it in a habitable interglacial-like state," the authors explain in their paper.
"Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System –biosphere, climate, and societies – and could include decarbonisation of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioural changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values."
Okay, so they're asking for a lot, but is the alternative preferable: a stabilisation of extreme environmental conditions where temperatures increase up to 5°C hotter than pre-Industrial temperatures? Bringing with it sea level rises of 10–60 metres, in turn destroying coastlines, agriculture, our ability to govern, and ultimately to survive?
It's not all bad news, though.
"Some signs are emerging that societies are initiating some of the necessary transformations," the researchers write.
"However, these transformations are still in initial stages, and the social/political tipping points that definitively move the current trajectory away from Hothouse Earth have not yet been crossed, while the door to the Stabilised Earth pathway may be rapidly closing."
The researchers don't pretend to have all the answers, and they acknowledge that their 2°C threshold is a largely hypothetical marker.
But in light of everything we're learning about the perilous state the world is in – again and again and again – it should come as a surprise to precisely nobody at all that the stakes are this terrifyingly high.
"In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf," climate researcher Phil Williamson from the University of East Anglia, who wasn't involved in the study, told The Guardian.
"The wolves are now in sight."
The findings are reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Article source : https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-unleash-irreversible-hothouse-earth-scientists-warn-global-warming-climate-change-feedback
------------------------------------
Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth
into a ‘hothouse’ state
Leading scientists warn that passing such a point would make efforts to reduce emissions increasingly futile
Jonathan Watts/ Tue 7 Aug 2018 07.21 BST
A domino-like cascade of melting ice, warming seas, shifting currents and dying forests could tilt the Earth into a “hothouse” state beyond which human efforts to reduce emissions will be increasingly futile, a group of leading climate scientists has warned.
This grim prospect is sketched out in a journal paper that considers the combined consequences of 10 climate change processes, including the release of methane trapped in Siberian permafrost and the impact of melting ice in Greenland on the Antarctic.
Climate cascade: feedback loops could amplify one another, pushing Earth towards ‘hothouse’ state, warn scientists
The authors of the essay, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stress their analysis is not conclusive, but warn the Paris commitment to keep warming at 2C above pre-industrial levels may not be enough to “park” the planet’s climate at a stable temperature.
They warn that the hothouse trajectory “would almost certainly flood deltaic environments, increase the risk of damage from coastal storms, and eliminate coral reefs (and all of the benefits that they provide for societies) by the end of this century or earlier.”
Fifty years ago, this would be dismissed as alarmist, but now scientists have become really worried - Johan Rockström, executive director, Stockholm Resilience Centre -
“I do hope we are wrong, but as scientists we have a responsibility to explore whether this is real,” said Johan Rockström, executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “We need to know now. It’s so urgent. This is one of the most existential questions in science.”
Rockström and his co-authors are among the world’s leading authorities on positive feedback loops, by which warming temperatures release new sources of greenhouse gases or destroy the Earth’s ability to absorb carbon or reflect heat.
Their new paper asks whether the planet’s temperature can stabilise at 2C or whether it will gravitate towards a more extreme state. The authors attempt to assess whether warming can be halted or whether it will tip towards a “hothouse” world that is 4C warmer than pre-industrial times and far less supportive of human life.
Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen, one of the authors, said the paper showed that climate action was not just a case of turning the knob on emissions, but of understanding how various factors interact at a global level.
“We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2C warmer than the preindustrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will ‘want’ to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions,” she said. “This implies not only reducing emissions but much more.”
New feedback loops are still being discovered. A separate paper published in PNAS reveals that increased rainfall – a symptom of climate change in some regions - is making it harder for forest soils to trap greenhouse gases such as methane.
Previous studies have shown that weakening carbon sinks will add 0.25C, forest dieback will add 0.11C, permafrost thaw will add 0.9C and increased bacterial respiration will add 0.02C. The authors of the new paper also look at the loss of methane hydrates from the ocean floor and the reduction of snow and ice cover at the poles.
Rockström says there are huge gaps in data and knowledge about how one process might amplify another. Contrary to the Gaia theory, which suggests the Earth has a self-righting tendency, he says the feedbacks could push the planet to a more extreme state.
As an example, the authors say the loss of Greenland ice could disrupt the Gulf Stream ocean current, which would raise sea levels and accumulate heat in the Southern Ocean, which would in turn accelerate ice loss from the east Antarctic. Concerns about this possibility were heightened earlier this year by reports that the Gulf Stream was at its weakest level in 1,600 years.
Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1C above pre-industrial levels and rising at 0.17C per decade. The Paris climate agreement set actions to keep warming limited to 1.5C-2C by the end of the century, but the authors warn more drastic action may be necessary.
“The heatwave we now have in Europe is not something that was expected with just 1C of warming,” Rockström said. “Several positive feedback loops are already in operation, but they are still weak. We need studies to show when they might cause a runaway effect.
Another climate scientist – who was not involved in the paper – emphasised the document aimed to raise questions rather than prove a theory. “It’s rather selective, but not outlandish,” said Prof Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute. “Threshold and tipping points have been discussed previously, but to state that 2C is a threshold we can’t pull back from is new, I think. I’m not sure what ‘evidence’ there is for this – or indeed whether there can be until we experience it.”
Rockström said the question needed asking. “We could end up delivering the Paris agreement and keep to 2C of warming, but then face an ugly surprise if the system starts to slip away,” he said. “We don’t say this will definitely happen. We just list all the disruptive events and come up with plausible occurrences … 50 years ago, this would be dismissed as alarmist, but now scientists have become really worried.”
“In the context of the summer of 2018, this is definitely not a case of crying wolf, raising a false alarm: the wolves are now in sight,” said Dr Phil Williamson, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. “The authors argue that we need to be much more proactive in that regard, not just ending greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible, but also building resilience in the context of complex Earth system processes that we might not fully understand until it is too late.”
Article source : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state
------------------------------------
Six Tough Questions About Climate Change
by Renee Cho|November 30, 2015
Whenever the focus is on climate change, as it is right now at the Paris climate conference, tough questions are asked concerning the costs of cutting carbon emissions, the feasibility of transitioning to renewable energy, and whether it’s already too late to do anything about climate change. We posed these questions to Laura Segafredo, manager for the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project. The decarbonization project comprises energy research teams from 16 of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries that are developing concrete strategies to reduce emissions in their countries. The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project is an initiative of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Q1. Will the actions we take today be enough to forestall the direct impacts of climate change? Or is it too little too late?
There is still time and room for limiting climate change within the 2˚C limit that scientists consider relatively safe, and that countries endorsed in Copenhagen and Cancun. But clearly the window is closing quickly. I think that the most important message is that we need to start really, really soon, putting the world on a trajectory of stabilizing and reducing emissions. The temperature change has a direct relationship with the cumulative amount of emissions that are in the atmosphere, so the more we keep emitting at the pace that we are emitting today, the more steeply we will have to go on a downward trajectory and the more expensive it will be.
Today we are already experiencing an average change in global temperature of .8˚. With the cumulative amount of emissions that we are going to emit into the atmosphere over the next years, we will easily reach 1.5˚ without even trying to change that trajectory.
Assateague Island National Seashore where the potential for storm surges and flooding is higher due to sea level rise.
Two degrees might still be doable, but it requires significant political will and fast action. And even 2˚ is a significant amount of warming for the planet, and will have consequences in terms of sea level rise, ecosystem changes, possible extinctions of species, displacements of people, diseases, agriculture productivity changes, health related effects and more. But if we can contain global warming within those 2˚, we can manage those effects. I think that’s really the message of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports—that’s why the 2˚ limit was chosen, in a sense. It’s a level of warming where we can manage the risks and the consequences. Anything beyond that would be much, much worse.
Q2. Will taking action make our lives better or safer, or will it only make a difference to future generations?
It will make our lives better and safer for sure. For example, let’s think about what it means to replace a coal power plant with a cleaner form of energy like wind or solar. People that live around the coal power plant are going to have a lot less air pollution, which means less asthma for children, and less time wasted because of chronic or acute diseases. In developing countries, you’re talking about potentially millions of lives saved by replacing dirty fossil fuel based power generation with clean energy.
It will also have important consequences for agricultural productivity. There’s a big risk that with the concentration of carbon and other gases in the atmosphere, agricultural yields will be reduced, so preventing that means more food for everyone.
And then think about cities. If you didn’t have all that pollution from cars, we could live in cities that are less noisy, where the air’s much better, and have potentially better transportation. We could live in better buildings where appliances are more efficient. And investing in energy efficiency would basically leave more money in our pockets. So there are a lot of benefits that we can reap almost immediately, and that’s without even considering the biggest benefit—leaving a planet in decent condition for future generations.
Q3. How will measures to cut carbon emissions affect my life in terms of cost?
To build a climate resilient economy, we need to incorporate the three pillars of energy system transformation that we focus on in all the deep decarbonization pathways. Number one is improving energy efficiency in every part of the economy—buildings, what we use inside buildings, appliances, industrial processes, cars…everything you can think of can perform the same service, but using less energy. What that means is that you will have a slight increase in the price in the form of a small investment up front, like insulating your windows or buying a more efficient car, but you will end up saving a lot more money over the life of the equipment in terms of decreased energy costs.
The second pillar is making electricity, the power sector, carbon-free by replacing dirty power generation with clean power sources. That’s clearly going to cost a little money, but those costs are coming down so quickly. In fact there are already a lot of clean technologies that are at cost parity with fossil fuels— for example, onshore wind is already as competitive as gas—and those costs are only coming down in the future. We can also expect that there are going to be newer technologies. But in any event, the fact that we’re going to use less power because of the first pillar should actually make it a wash in terms of cost.
The Australian deep decarbonization teams have estimated that even with the increased costs of cleaner cars, and more efficient equipment for the home, etc., when the power system transitions to where it’s zero carbon, you still have savings on your energy bills compared to the previous situation.
The third pillar that we think about are clean fuels, essentially zero-carbon fuels. So we either need to electrify everything— like cars and heating, once the power sector is free of carbon—or have low-carbon fuels to power things that cannot be electrified, such as airplanes or big trucks. But once you have efficiency, these types of equipment are also more efficient, and you should be spending less money on energy.
Saving money depends on the three pillars together, thinking about all this as a whole system.
Q4. Given that renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our energy and that nuclear power is so expensive, what can we realistically do to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible?
There are a lot of studies that have been done for the U.S. and for Europe that show that it’s very realistic to think of a power sector that is almost entirely powered by renewables by 2050 or so. It’s actually feasible—and this considers all the issues with intermittency, dealing with the networks, and whatever else represents a technological barrier—that’s all included in these studies. There’s also the assumption that energy storage, like batteries, will be cheaper in the future.
That is the future, but 2050 is not that far away. 35 years for an energy transition is not a long time. It’s important that this transition start now with the right policy incentives in place. We need to make sure that cars are more efficient, that buildings are more efficient, that cities are built with more public transit so less fossil fuels are needed to transport people from one place to another.
I don’t want people to think that because we’re looking at 2050, that means that we can wait—in order to be almost carbon free by 2050, or close to that target, we need to act fast and start now.
Q5. Will the remedies to climate change be worse than the disease? Will it drive more people into poverty with higher costs?
I actually think the opposite is true. If we just let climate go the way we are doing today by continuing business as usual, that will drive many people into poverty. There’s a clear relationship between climate change and changing weather patterns, so more significant and frequent extreme weather events, including droughts, will affect the livelihoods of a large portion of the world population. Once you have droughts or significant weather events like extreme precipitation, you tend to see displacements of people, which create conflict, and conflict creates disease.
I think Syria is a good example of the world that we might be going towards if we don’t do anything about climate change. Syria is experiencing a once-in-a-century drought, and there’s a significant amount of desertification going on in those areas, so you’re looking at more and more arid areas. That affects agriculture, so people have moved from the countryside to the cities and that has created a lot of pressure on the cities. The conflict in Syria is very much related to the drought, and the drought can be ascribed to climate change.
And consider the ramifications of the Syrian crisis: the refugee crisis in Europe, terrorism, security concerns and 7 million-plus people displaced. I think that that’s the world that we’re going towards. And in a world like that, when you have to worry about people being safe and alive, you certainly cannot guarantee wealth and better well-being, or education and health.
Q6. So finally, doing what needs to be done to combat climate change all comes down to political will?
The majority of the American public now believe that climate change is real, that it’s human induced and that we should do something about it.
But there’s seems to be a disconnect between what these numbers seem to indicate and what the political discourse is like… I can’t understand it, yet it seems to be the situation.
I’m a little concerned because other more immediate concerns like terrorism and safety always come first. Because the effects of climate change are going to be felt a little further away, people think that we can always put it off. The Department of Defense, its top-level people, have made the connection between climate change and conflict over the next few decades. That’s why I would argue that Syria is actually a really good example to remind us that if we are experiencing security issues today, it’s also because of environmental problems. We cannot ignore them.
The reality is that we need to do something about climate change fast—we don’t have time to fight this over the next 20 years. We have to agree on this soon and move forward and not waste another 10 years debating.
Read the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project 2015 report. The full report will be released Dec. 2.
LAURA bigger
Laura Segafredo was a senior economist at the ClimateWorks Foundation, where she focused on best practice energy policies and their impact on emission trajectories. She was a lead author of the 2012 UNEP Emissions Gap Report and of the Green Growth in Practice Assessment Report. Before joining ClimateWorks, Segafredo was a research economist at Electricité de France in Paris.
She obtained her Ph.D. in energy studies and her BA in economics from the University of Padova (Italy), and her MSc in economics from the University of Toulouse (France).
Article source : https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/11/30/six-tough-questions-about-climate-change/
------------------------------------
< Climate Change & Environment Questions >
< Climate Change Discussions >
Q1. How do you feel about climate change?
Q2. Are you more worried about climate change or the war on terror?
Q3. Has climate change affected the country in which you live?
Q4. Do you believe everything scientists say about climate change?
Q5. Do you believe everything politicians say about climate change?
Q6. What do you think the world’s climate will be like 50 years from now?
Q7. What do you do to try to limit the effects of climate change?
Q8. What is your country doing to limit the effects of climate change?
Q9. Do you think the USA and China are doing enough?
Q10. How often do you think about climate change?
Q11. How would you explain climate change to someone who knew nothing about it?
Q12. What can the world do to reverse climate change?
Q13. Are “eco-friendly” cars and electrical appliances really eco-friendly?
Q14. What will our grandchildren think of us using so much carbon?
Q15. What do you know about carbon footprints?
Q16. Which industries need to become cleaner and greener?
Q17. Do you think there’ll be climate change refugees in the future?
Q18. What are you most worried about with climate change?
Q19. Are there any positives to come from climate change?
Q20. Is climate change the worst thing ever to happen to humankind?
< General questions on Climate Change >
Q1. What is global warming?
Q2. What causes global warming? Is the ozone hole causing climate change?
Q3. What is climate change? Is it different than global warming?
Q4. What does global warming have to do with severe weather, like droughts and hurricanes?
Q5. Is it too late to prevent climate change?
Q6. What does global warming have to do with rising sea levels?
Q7. Can you explain the urban heat island effect?
Q8. What does eating meat and dairy have to do with climate change?
Q9. What does climate change have to do with spreading disease?
Q10. How does climate change affect the food supply?
Q11. What is a carbon footprint and how can I reduce my carbon footprint?
Q12. What are renewable sources of energy?
Q13. What is the United States doing to combat global warming?
Q14. What are corporations doing to combat global warming?
Q15. What is the United Nations doing to combat climate change?
Q16. Is there hope that we will be able to do something before it is too late?
< Tough Questions about Climate Change >
Q1. What is the 'hothouse Earth'? Why does it happen?
Q2 Will the actions we take today be enough to forestall the direct impacts of climate change? Or is it too little too late?
Q3. Will taking action make our lives better or safer, or will it only make a difference to future generations?
Q4. How will measures to cut carbon emissions affect my life in terms of cost?
Q5. Given that renewable sources provide only a small percentage of our energy and that nuclear power is so expensive, what can we realistically do to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible?
Q6. Will the remedies to climate change be worse than the disease? Will it drive more people into poverty with higher costs?
Q7. So finally, doing what needs to be done to combat climate change all comes down to political will?
|