Sunday, November 22, 2020

From Beneath Us It Devours: The Implications of Thawing Permafrost for Indigenous Communities

On Nov. 12, 2020, I talked about the implications of thawing permafrost for indigenous communities on Cimpatico's adaptation channel. 

(Jump to Cimpatico's description of itself at the bottom of this post.)

(Jump to my explanation of how I ended up talking about this topic on Cimpatico.)

You can see the interview on the Cimpatico platform here. You have to create a free account to get access.

Or, see it on Youtube.

It's 26 minutes, and with that time constraint I didn't get to talk about a lot of things I wanted to talk about. So, I'm going to make this post a parking lot of resources for people who want to learn more about this topic.

Map of global permafrost extent in the Northern Hemisphere

What Is Permafrost?

Permafrost is soil, sediment, or rock that remains at or below 0 C for at least two consecutive years. (R. Wray, Indigenous Peoples' Atlas of Canada).

Permafrost is part of the "cryosphere" -- the parts of the Earth where water is found in the forms of ice and snow. The cryosphere includes sea ice, lake ice, river ice, snow cover, glaciers, ice sheets, ice caps, and the places where the ground is frozen, including permafrost. (See NOAA's cryosphere page.)

Why Do Scientists Think it is Thawing?

Evidence of thawing permafrost extends back 60 years. A study showed that "significant degradation" of permafrost has occurred since 1964 along the Alaska Highway corridor in Canada (the southern Yukon and northern BC area): it appears permafrost has retreated northward by "at least" 25 kilometers (James et al. 2013).

What Are the Primary Impacts of Thawing Permafrost?

The primary impact of thawing permafrost is the loss of natural infrastructure, which causes a long list of secondary impacts that destabilize systems that socio-economic systems depend on. This includes destabilization of roads, buildings, chilling facilities (especially for food), sewage and garbage containment systems, coastal land through erosion, and burial grounds (see the 2017 NPR piece "Cemeteries Turn To Swamps As Alaska's Permafrost Melts"). Also, there is a threat to clean water from thawing permafrost. Some communities depend on fresh water from lakes contained by permafrost (thermokarst lakes), and as the containment strength of the permafrost weakens, the community might slowly or suddenly lose its fresh water source. In August 2016, the Alaskan village of Point Lay lost its fresh water source suddenly when ground ice separating its reservoir from an adjacent river thawed, draining the reservoir (Trochim & Schuur 2018).

Other health-related impacts of thawing permafrost are the release of pollutants such as mercury from the permafrost (see the 2015 Barents Observer piece "Arctic Mercury Pollution To Increase as Permafrost Thaws"), and the re-awakening of long-dormant diseases such as anthrax (see the 2016 Barents Observer piece "Scientist: Yamal anthrax outbreak could just be the beginning"). A Nov. 20, 2020, article in Scientific American raises the alarm about "the potential risks from the resurrection of ancient and poorly described viral genomes" (pointing to Ng et al. 2014, discussing the reanimation of a 700-year-old caribou virus from a permanent ice patch).

Also, there is the release of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from thawing permafrost, creating a feedback loop that will speed up climate change, with particularly vicious immediate feedbacks into the Arctic's warming. Thawing permafrost is releasing the powerful greenhouse gas methane, which bubbles to the surface in Arctic lakes, but also might be causing explosions, resulting in mysterious craters appearing around the Arctic in a process called cryovolcanism (see the 2020 National Geographic piece "Colossal crater found in Siberia. What made it?").

The Arctic was thought to be warming two or three times faster than the rest of the planet. Now it's thought that it might be 3.75 times faster (Post et al., 2019). Autumnal warming might be even faster than that, as much as 6-8 times in some parts of the Arctic (per 2020 thread by Van Steenbergen, referencing the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer). This will only get faster.

In the interview on Nov. 12 someone asked about whether there will be a sudden, catastrophic release of methane from the warming Arctic, sometimes called a "methane bomb," and my answer was that the threat of climate change to food security in the Arctic is a much more imminent threat than any methane release. Read more about how the hype about a potential methane bomb in the Arctic isn't supported by the findings of scientists studying the subject in this 2020 Popular Science article "The Arctic might be a methane time bomb—or not."

What Are the Particular Impacts of Thawing Permafrost on Indigenous Communities?

In addition to the threats to Arctic indigenous communities posed by colonial settler practices (historic and current), personal and structural racism, and extractive industries (oil, gas, and mining), these communities have to face the threat of climate change, which goes beyond physical threats to pose an existential threat to their cultures. Permafrost thaw is literally uprooting their way of life.

For example, reindeer herders in Siberia have observed disturbances to historic migration routes and pastures due to thawing permafrost: the land they and their ancestors depended on for thousands of years is turning into unpredictable swampland.

There is also the problem of increased isolation for communities that depend on stable permafrost and ice to access food and medicine in the shoulder months of winter, not only exacerbating threats to physical health, but mental health. Check out "Indigenous mental health in a changing climate: a systematic scoping review of the global literature" by Middleton et al. (2020) for an overview of the current research on the latter.

Additionally, there is the more direct problem of falling into caverns in the ground and holes in the ice as these elements of natural infrastructure destabilize. Denise Pollock (then of the Alaska Institute for Justice) presented at the National Adaptation Forum in 2017 about the dangerous conditions now faced by the hunters in her home village of Shishmaref: "We don't have words [in Inupiaq] for how ice is forming now."

In some cases, entire indigenous villages might be lost due to destabilized natural infrastructure leading to displacement. The sudden loss of fresh water due to the collapse of thermokarst lakes has threatened to displace indigenous communities in Chukota, Russia, including the villages of Neshkan, Enurmino, and Uelen, as well as many coastal villages (per Eduard Zdor, a Chukchi marine mammal hunter and academic based out of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks).

Newtok

In Alaska, there is the famous case of the village of Newtok being threatened with erosion as a nearby riverbank recedes due to thawing permafrost, forcing the village to plan to build a new village nine miles away. The new village, Mertarvik, saw its first settlement in 2019. Catastrophic erosion due to permafrost thaw -- "usteq" in Yup'ik ("surface caves in") -- is now addressed in Alaska's State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018). According to that document, in 2016 usteq "claimed at least 40 feet of ground between Newtok and the Ninglick River [...], with blocks of tundra the size of minivans slumping and being carried away by floodwaters. The town is built on permafrost plateaus just 6-10 feet above river level, and the ground is disintegrating." One-third of Newtok's population has moved to Mertarvik, where residents report finding conditions far healthier (though they had some trouble voting in Alaska's August 18, 2020, primary election, since the state says it didn't realize people were living in the new village). The other two-thirds is awaiting funding to move. 

(Check out the Alaska Institute for Justice presentation on community-led relocation of Alaska Native villages from the National Adaptation Forum in 2019.)

Norilsk

In 2020, Siberia experienced an unprecedented fuel leak caused in part by thawing permafrost, resulting in the contamination of a lake on which the local indigenous peoples (including Nenets and Evenki) depend for food. The leak took place in Norilsk, Russia, the most northern city in the world, and the largest (with over 175,000 permanent residents) built on permafrost inside the Arctic circle. It is home to the largest known nickel, copper, and palladium deposits in the world, and its largest employer is Nornickel, whose subsidiary failed to maintain the fuel reservoir that leaked 21,000 tonnes of diesel fuel into the Ambarnaya River on May 29, 2020, contaminating a 350 square kilometer (135 square mile) area. It eventually reached an important source of food and fresh water for local indigenous communities, Lake Pyasino. The lake was declared "dead" after the spill by the head of the local branch of the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency. The event is unprecedented for several reasons: it is the first (known) significant spill of its size or kind in the Russian Arctic, it was almost immediately associated with climate change-induced permafrost thawing, and it resulted in an unprecedented fine for Nornickel (148 billion rubles, or about 1.9 billion USD), an ethnological impact assessment (which determined there was measurable harm to 700 indigenous individuals), and a 2 billion ruble (about 26 million USD) settlement for the local indigenous peoples. (It should be noted that there are divisions in the indigenous communities regarding the impact of the spill on traditional food sources, described in this excellent blog post by political geographer Dr. Mia Bennett). The government's prosecutor general I. Krasnov ordered safety checks on all "particularly dangerous installations" built on permafrost in the Russian Arctic in the wake of the spill.

What's going on with the walruses?

In the Nov. 12 interview I touched on the loss of sea ice leading to walruses increasingly using land-based haul-outs, leading to the deprivation of coastal indigenous communities of this important food source. Basically, when walruses haul out on land, it leads to crowding and -- in the presence of perceived threats, such as a marine mammal hunter -- stampedes that can easily kill baby walruses. So, it isn't safe to hunt walrus in these haul-outs. There was a hubbub last year when a Netflix documentary ("Our Planet") included 2017 footage of a fatal walrus stampede over a cliff. In that particular case, the footage was spliced from different events to make a more dramatic narrative, and that stampede off that cliff likely had nothing to do with running away from a threat or the reduction in sea ice (read Ed Yong's 2019 piece in the Atlantic on the subject). Fatal stampedes in land-based walrus haul-outs is not a new phenomenon. However, they will become more of a problem as walruses are increasingly forced into hauling out on land. For this reason and others, walruses are particularly vulnerable to extinction because of climate change. (Read more in this 2017 NPR piece "On Thin Ice: Walruses Threatened After U.S. Declines To List As Endangered.")

Good places to look for more information on the implications of thawing permafrost for indigenous communities:

- Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center (USGS/University of Alaska Southeast).

- Alaska Institute for Justice (helping Alaska Native communities navigate relocation).

- Aborigen-Forum (Russia)
Also, check out Indigenous-Russia.com, which aggregates news relevant to Russia's indigenous peoples.

- International Arctic Research Center (based in Fairbanks, AK).


- The LEO Network - The Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network is facilitated by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and its mission is to document any unusual changes seen in the Arctic. (Access the LEO webinar archive.)

- The 2017 Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) report (288 p.) by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme ("conducted between 2010 and 2016 by an international group of over 90 scientists, experts and knowledgeable members of the Arctic indigenous communities"). See the report press release, with associated videos and regional report links.


About Cimpatico

"Cimpatico Studios produces live-stream talk shows about complex global challenges, featuring professionals from around the world who are working on these issues. All of Cimpatico Studios’ episodes are streamed directly to cimpatico.tv, an invite-only professional network designed to help professionals share knowledge and coordinate their efforts to improve outcomes of common interest.

"This year [in 2020] Cimpatico launched its first channel, the Climate Adaptation Channel, hosted by Doug Parsons. This summer Cimpatico is launching more channels that address a spectrum of environmental and social issues across every industry and sector.

"Sign up here (yes, it's free!!) to learn, network, and collaborate with a global community of media professionals, policymakers, researchers, practitioners, entrepreneurs, and students united by common interests."
Why did Cimpatico ask me to talk about the implications of thawing permafrost for indigenous communities?

Cimpatico contacted me back in September 2020 asking me to come on their adaptation channel, and they didn't specify the topic. I suggested a few topics that I care about and know something about. Among the topics I suggested, they said they had not yet had anybody on talking about thawing permafrost, or its implication for indigenous communities, although they had featured Barrett Ristroph talking about the relocation of Newtok in Alaska on a few occasions. This is a topic that is dear to my heart. In 2004, working at Pacific Environment, I heard from a colleague in Siberia about how permafrost was thawing and causing reindeer herders to lose their traditional pastures, to sink into the muck... to me it is the most heart-breaking of all current climate impacts: cryospheric cultures cannot survive climate change intact.

So I agreed to talk about this topic, and made the rounds checking with friends who work more directly and recently with indigenous communities in Alaska and Siberia to make sure I had the latest news. Particular shout-outs to Galina Angarova at the indigenous rights group Cultural Survival, Jennifer Castner at the Altai Project, and David Gordon, consultant/former Executive Director of Pacific Environment, for their help preparing for this interview. Also thanks to Barrett Ristroph, Chanda Meek, Eduard Zdor, and Anatolii Lebedev for their input, and the rest of the Sosnovka Coalition (an initiative of Pacific Environment).

I am neither a geomorphologist nor actively engaged in helping indigenous communities adapt to thawing permafrost, but I tried to reflect the reality of the situation for indigenous communities as best I could. Hopefully the next time Cimpatico has someone on their adaptation channel talking about this, it will be someone who can share first-hand experience of thawing permafrost from an indigenous perspective.

Check out the Nov. 5, 2020, National Adaptation Forum (NAF) webinar on displacement  that was a great help in preparing to talk about the situation in Alaska: Part 5, "Policy Considerations at Multiple Scales," featuring (among others) Robin Bronen of the Alaska Institute for Justice, and Don Antrobus of the Alaska Tribal Native Health Consortium.


Check out Barrett's Cimpatico interviews about Newtok:

Climate Relocation: It Takes a Village (and more) to Move a Village (36 min., link to Cimpatico) -  2020, "This Is," S. 1, Ep. 1 (the video isn't dated, but it looks like it was posted to Cimpatico in March 2020).

Avoiding Maladaptations to Flooding and Erosion: A Case Study of Alaskan Native Villages (30 min., link to Youtube) - December 10, 2019, "Research Review," S. 1, Ep. 1.  

Also: Check out her Youtube channel for other presentations about Newtok and other community relocation efforts.

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Fire and Plague

California has a million acres on fire right now, caused by a rare summer thunderstorm between August 15 and 19 that brought on 10,800 lightning strikes, causing 367 fires. (See an incredible composite time-lapse video taken from space showing the sparkle of lightning storms and the subsequent blossoming of fires.) Some fires are being allowed to just burn-- there aren't enough fire fighters to contain them all. 

Photo: Jeff Head (CC PDM 1.0)



At the same time, Covid-19 has been spreading across the state over the past six months, caused by an incredibly dangerous novel coronavirus that has adapted such that infected people are MOST infectious right before symptoms become evident, and it seems from population studies that half of infected people are asymptomatic but still able to spread the disease. The secondary impacts of both of these crises include skyrocketing unemployment, housing insecurity, and all of the mental health impacts of people being trapped in their homes by wildfire smoke and fear of infection. 

Add to that the numerous outrageous attacks by police and the police-adjacent in the last few months on unarmed African Americans (including Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, now Jacob Blake) and the protesters coming out to show solidarity (including Summer Taylor  -- now adding two killed yesterday in Kenosha, Wisconsin -- a full 32 deaths associated with policy brutality protests between the end of May and now)... 

And add to that the ever-slimmer likelihood that the U.S. will have a presidential election free of significant tampering by the current administration and its cronies come November... 
it's a stressful moment.

One of my coping strategies is to treat it all as a subject for study, and share what I find out with my friends to help them feel grounded in what passes for facts. I want to park a few helpful links related to the wildfire crisis here.

California Dept. of Public Health one-stop online resource center for Covid-19 + wildfire + extreme heat: Guidance and Resources for COVID-19, Climate Change, and Health Equity

A few researchers from Stanford’s Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Kari Nadeau and Mary Prunicki, answer some questions about Covid-19 x wildfire smoke: Stanford researchers discuss wildfires’ health impacts (by Rob Jordan, Aug. 26, 2020). TL,DR: people with higher exposure to air pollution are more vulnerable to Covid-19. 

Covid-19 is not an equal-opportunity infector: it is hitting low-income communities and communities of color far harder than other demographic groups (here's a very readable article on the subject, Moving From The Five Whys To Five Hows: Addressing Racial Inequities In COVID-19 Infection And Death, from July 2, 2020, on the health policy blog Health Affairs). It is well-documented that these communities have higher exposure to air pollution across the state. In particular: Wildfire Smoke Poses Greatest Risk to Low-Income Residents, People of Color, Experts Say (by Sarah Mizes-Tan at Cap Radio, Aug. 20, 2020)

The news reports percent containment in regard to wildfire. This is not the same as percent extinguished. What does "containment" mean when it comes to wildfire? Check out this helpful thread from Michael Wara, Director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment; he also serves on California's Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery.

How is climate change contributing to California's wildfires? Some answers surface in this conversation with climate scientist Daniel Swain on KQED's Forum by Michael Krasny (43 min.):  The Link Between Climate Change and Wildfires (Aug. 25, 2020). In this interview he emphasizes the need to return to the landscape a fire regime closer to the frequent, low-intensity controlled fire regime that was used to maintain the land under management by California Native communities.

More Daniel Swain explaining the link between climate change and wildfire, including the factoid that as climate impacts go, wildfire might not be our biggest emerging problem: California’s Climate Tinderbox: A Scientist Explains the Fire Crisis (by Eric Roston, Aug. 25, 2020)

From that interview:

We’re currently developing a statewide disaster-contingency scenario for an extreme flood event. It’s the most foreseeable disaster that everyone's going to say came by surprise. Think about what happened in 1862 in The Great Flood [a "megaflood" that swamped large swathes of California for 6 months: read more]. We know it's already physically possible, since it already happened without climate change. Today it would be a multi-trillion dollar disaster. We already showed that we think that the likelihood of this happening over the next 40 years is about 50-50. Over the next 60 years, it’s right around 100%.

Read Dr. Swain's Aug. 21, 2020, blog post about the recent lightning storm and wildfires here.


Thursday, December 12, 2019

"Climate change" or "global warming" - is one more correct? Is one more useful?

I suddenly got busier and haven't had a chance to finish the series of posts I was preparing, commenting on the 2019 textbook Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Policy.

Meanwhile, a friend on Facebook innocently asked about the best way to refer to what's happening to our planet: "climate change" or "global warming." It occurred to me that my reply to her might be useful or at least entertaining to others.

~
My friend's question, paraphrased:

I was speaking with a friend the other night about the terms, "global warming" and "climate change." I prefer global climate change, she prefers global warming. Is one of us correct, or are both terms equally useful?

~
My answer:

This is debated all the time among people in the climate change communication field. The academic term is global change or global environmental change (which is what is used for the government office that puts together the national climate assessment - the U.S. Global Change Research Program). I thought that was a bit oblique, but it's really the most correct term if you want to include (drumroll please) ocean acidification (cymbal crash). Because that's a process happening parallel to climate change--it isn't climate change, but it is caused by elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Now, the argument for "global warming" is that it does accurately describe the most consequential atmospheric process that is happening, while the argument against is that it is misleading, because the consequences of global warming include the wandering of the polar vortex, bringing Arctic weather to the Great Lakes, for example-- counterintuitive if you are focusing your language on "warming."

"Climate change" is currently the most popular phrase, and it's accurate, but on the down side it doesn't really convey the fact that this is going to end life on Earth as we know it. "Change" is just - weak tea, really.

"Climate chaos" has the virtue of being accurate and conveying the fact that this is highly consequential. The downside of that is that it can trigger people's sense of helplessness - if it's all chaos then there's nothing to be done, we should just enjoy life while we can and not change anything we're doing.

Perhaps a good medium-panicky term is "climate disruption" - giving the listener a nice, Latinate, sober-sounding term that doesn't inspire helplessness as much as Greek, drama-queeny "chaos."

I don't know that there is a term that is always best in all situations - you have to read your audience and choose accordingly. Does the person seem plucky and ready to F SH*T UP - "climate chaos" might be a good term to engage them. Does the person seem shell-shocked already from all the terrible news about climate and can't take One More Thing? "Climate change" or "climate disruption" might work best. Are you talking to an elder who stopped following the news in 1992? "Global warming" might make the most sense.

Thursday, August 8, 2019

Nuggets from the Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Policy (2019) (1/4)

The following are some nuggets I gleaned from reading the Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Policy, edited by E.C.H. Keskitalo and B.L. Preston (2019). I'm not attempting to summarize all the various findings, just noting things that resonate with me or inspire questions. It's a five-part book, so I will break this up into four posts: (1) parts one and two (intro; theory); (2) part three (policy at different levels/in different contexts); (3) part four (sector-specific/cross-cutting perspectives); (4) part five (conclusions).



I. Introduction

Introduction: understanding adaptation in the context of social theory (E.C.H. Keskitalo and B.L. Preston)

The authors say we need to take a step back and look at our underlying theoretical assumptions before analyzing or evaluating adaptation policy.

Social science/theory tells us:
  • Knowledge alone is not enough
  • "Learning cannot per se be assumed" (e.g., facts leading to action cannot be assumed)
  • Asking "Where can we go wrong?" can reveal underlying political limitations, competing priorities, and related trade-offs (p. 16)
Other things that resonated with me as very true/worth pondering:

If there's no dedicated adaptation funding, adaptation falls to the bottom of the political agenda.

Nobody has a good definition of "transformation" (resilience theory). Are criteria for transformation inevitably normative? (Favoring a certain kind of transformation, or favoring transformation over incremental change?)

How can a clearer definition of "transformation" help move us toward better adaptation policy? It doesn't tell us what triggers transformation (either transformation generally or the certain kind of transformation we want to see).

(1) The evolving interactions between adaptation research, international policy and development practice (I. Noble)

These are the author's descriptors of the stages in the evolution of adaptation policy (Table 1.1.) with the first item under each header in parentheses (the primary concept that arose in that stage):
  • 19th c. early scholarship (Identifying the greenhouse effect)
  • to 1965 (Can we model weather?)
  • 1966-1989 Humans can affect Earth systems (First voices for adaptation scholarship)
  • 1990s Mitigation is the priority (Focus on impact assessment)
  • 2000-2005 Proactive adaptation is needed (Frameworks for adaptation action)
  • 2006-2010 Who will pay? (Social vulnerability)
  • post-2010 Just get on with it (Underlying drivers of vulnerability)
The latter five categories are section headings in the chapter.

In the 2006-2010 section: at first there were few estimates of the financial needs for adaptation, it was just assumed they would be a lot cheaper than mitigation (GHG reduction). Then Nicholas Stern said in 2007 poor countries could sustain losses greater than 10% of their GDP because of climate change. Subsequent analyses produced higher projections. People stopped saying adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation.

Speaking of costs: someone at Brazil's Climate Change Research Group at the Ministry of Science and Technology posted the entire Stern report, or at least 662 pages of it (Amazon says it is 712 pages). The eBook is sold by the publisher for $84.

When people realized you couldn't pick a fixed end point for adaptation as a goal, they started zeroing in on the importance of assessing people's adaptive capacity, shifting from a focus on people's "end-point" to their "starting-point." This was a social vulnerability frame which clashed with the more prevalent risk-management frame, which was having trouble (still has trouble) monetizing and therefore largely ignored intangible gains and losses (life, human potential, like that) that are important in social vulnerability approaches.

In the post-2010 section: adaptation is not limited by lack of funding as much as "the social costs and consequences of changing livelihoods, of relocating homes and losing cultural assets." The author specifies that this is true in developing countries. I would say it is probably true everywhere.

The author points to different frameworks for avoiding maladaptation, recommending especially Stephane Hallegatte's 2009 framework for identifying robust adaptation options (Strategies to Adapt to an Uncertain Climate Change, in Global Environmental Change).

I've always referred to adaptation as the dinghy bobbling along behind the bigger, better-funded boat of mitigation, but the author sees them as twins, though adaptation is still lesser: "[a]daptation will likely remain the neglected twin within [international] negotiations." He sees it losing out to the "noisier mitigation sibling."

II. Theoretical frameworks and systems relevant to climate change adaptation policy research

(2) Challenges associated with implementing climate adaptation policy (M. Howlett, I. Mukherjee, S. Fritzen)

"Adaptive co-management (ACM)" is a new bit of jargon for me. Adaptive management + collaboration (presumably with groups outside your agency/organization). I don't know how I missed it, it's been around a while - in 2012 an article came out asking "is ACM a success?" (Adaptive Comanagement: a Systematic Review and Analysis - Plummer 2012). I have to wonder if anyone does non-collaborative adaptive management. If they do, it must be on a very small geographic scale, like, managing a turtle pond in your own back yard.

The chapter defines a "stakeholder"for a policy as "someone potentially concerned by, interested in, important to, or having any power over the policy being initiated." When I define stakeholder, I include those who are affected by the policy regardless of their level of awareness of, concern about, or interest in the policy. This definition points only to those already concerned about a thing, or potentially in a position to influence a thing. These are the people who may come to the table of their own accord, requiring no outreach. If that's all you've got at the table, you need to do better.

(3) The role of law and legal systems in climate change adaptation policy (J. Wenta, J. McDonald)

The South African Constitution from 1996, a visionary document by many standards, includes a right to a healthy environment. Adaptation measures can be predicated on this constitutional right. For reference/inspiration, here is the text of that part of the SA Constitution (Ch. 2, Bill of Rights: Section 24, Environment):

Everyone has the right: ­
a. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
b. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ­ i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. promote conservation; and iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

According to this 2016 Harvard Environmental Law Review article, the constitution also gives broad standing to "[a]nyone acting in the public interest" -- anyone can seek remedy in the courts on behalf of the public if they feel this right has been infringed. A beautiful thing, if it can be made meaningful in practice.

A note on the hazards of bottom-up decision making: "There is [...] a risk that devolving adaptation measures to the local level fails to account for externalities, particularly relating to public environmental values." -- This is important to remember if you are prone to saying "mitigation is global but adaptation is local." It might BE local but SHOULD it be, only and always?

(4) Moving from incremental to transformational change in climate adaptation policy? An institutionalist perspective (J. Munck af Rosenschöld, J. G. Rozema)

The "new institutionalist" descriptor is new to me. "New institutionalism" considers the influence of institutional settings when considering human behavior. Wikipedia's "New Institutionalism" article says it's a school of thought focusing on how institutions interact with and affect society.

The authors want to discuss how institutions slow down adaptation ("[o]ur goal here is [...] to explore the role of institutions, both formal and informal, in slowing down changes in adaptation"). Formal institutions are rule systems; informal institutions are "the context in which adaptation occurs and new strategies emerge," such as societal norms and cognitive scripts.

This chapter repeatedly advances the presumption that transformational adaptation is better than incremental adaptation. Big changes = better. "Move fast and break things," I guess.
~
I'm hoping this book at some point deals with the question of defining effective adaptation and criteria for measuring effectiveness. Is any intentional adaptation by definition successful because it was attempted? So far that seems to be the working definition.
~
(5) Enabling conditions for the mainstreaming of adaptation policy and practice (D. Russel)

This chapter introduced me to the idea of integration (of policies, administrative bodies, etc.) being either positive or negative. Negative integration is where the goal is avoiding conflict, where the parties just "rub along together," whereas positive integration is focused on achieving collective goals, perhaps entailing compromises on the part of the parties involved, either on their own goals or their ways of working. The latter is the more difficult kind of integration, and probably more effective, but the former ("rubbing along") is more common. And, better than no integration at all.

Here's an interesting question: can mainstreaming be transformational? Or is it by definition an incremental approach? (The author points to one study on this question, "Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation" - J. Squires 2005).

Oooh, another new word for me: "problematique." Wikipedia says it refers to a "meta system of problems" inherent in global problems, and it's another way of saying "wicked problem" (or "mess").

"While society-based approaches [to mainstreaming] have yet to be discussed in relation to climate change adaptation, their focus on the behaviour of actors in wider society fits the adaptation problematique well because [...] it requires coordinated action among a myriad of stakeholders across the public and private spheres of society." 

(6) Unpacking the potential role of social learning in adaptation policy (G. Cundill, B. Harvey)

This chapter defines social learning as: "a change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to become situated within wider social units or communities of practice through social interactions between actors within social networks" (citing Reed et al. 2010, "What is social learning").

Adaptive management used social learning to address uncertainty by treating policies as large-scale, multi-decadal experiments.

Collaborative management used social learning to resolve issues between stakeholders and build consensus for collective action.

Adaptive co-management brings together adaptive management's "learning-by-doing" emphasis and collaborative management's collective/inclusive decision-making emphasis.

A participatory process is not necessarily an example of social learning.

Power dynamics between actors may be at the root of a less-powerful person adopting the position of someone with power, and that factor is not sufficiently studied in social learning theory. Some forms of deliberation might be better than others at addressing power differences between participants.

(7) The Promise and limits of participation in adaptation governance: moving beyond participation towards disruption (A. Oels)

The author asserts that stakeholder-driven processes reproduce the status quo.

To her, disruption > participation, if social transformation is the goal. She defines transformational adaptation as (a) desirable, (b) addressing the roots of vulnerability by changing "the system."

She contrasts the theories of Jürgen Habermas, who has an optimistic view of public participation (that it leads to a rational outcome), and Michel Foucault, who has a pessimistic view of public participation (the status quo wins, the roots of vulnerability go unaddressed).

Habermas' public participation that results in a rational outcome takes place in an "ideal speech situation" where both fairness and competence are evident. In the presence of these things, the "better argument" wins. The roots of vulnerability are addressed, and the most vulnerable are protected.

Turning to Foucault, we see how the fairness criterion cannot be met because speech is coded with power - it is gendered, learned, exclusive. Cultural norms are reproduced in the deliberative process just as in everyday interactions. There is always a power struggle in a deliberative process. One particularly convincing truth or set of truths wins. The vulnerable who are convinced they are not vulnerable (or, maybe more often, are convinced they can't do anything to reduce their vulnerability) decide not to go with the business-as-usual path.

Better outcomes can be achieved, perhaps, if the "vulnerable" are brought in as co-leaders at the beginning of the deliberative process so that they aren't cast as the less-powerful being brought in only as participants in the process designed by the more-powerful. (This is stakeholder engagement 101, and should be obvious, in my humble opinion.)

Unless there is a "systemic shift in dominant constellations of power and knowledge," the status quo is upheld by public participation in a deliberative process. There might be incremental change, but nothing more. That systemic shift is what the author refers to by "disruption." One form this disruption might take is in the performance of new realities ("performatively enact[ing] new realities"), such as when undocumented immigrants assert rights they don't officially have in their adopted home country.

Fantasy, theatre, and role-play can help bring about these systemic shifts. Therefore, our public processes around adaptation should incorporate these elements. (This sounds like the participatory scenario planning process, where two critical deep uncertainties are interplayed and resulting near/mid/distant future "headlines" and response actions are brainstormed. It helps participants explore multiple plausible futures-of-concern.)

The author makes an interesting pitch for resisting instead of adapting. She supports the idea of residents of low-lying island nations not just migrating away, but asserting that they will not be moved -- performing a new reality wherein the loss of their land is not inevitable -- and so potentially fueling a stronger push for greenhouse gas mitigation.

(8) Research methodology for adaptation policy analysis: embracing the eclectic messy centre (M. Purdon, P. Thornton)

This chapter is written in extremely dense jargon interspersed with sentences like "When you are hungry, it seems reasonable to assume that you are thinking about food." One take-away I gleaned: stand-alone case studies alone are not enough to draw conclusions about how/why adaptation policies are developed: comparative methods are needed. Another: informal institutions matter, especially in the developing world.

Next: Part III: Understanding Adaptation Policy Development and Implementation at Different Levels and Country Contexts

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

10 Things I've Learned...and an 11th Thing

I was solicited by Impakter Magazine (focused on sustainable development) to write about being a woman in the climate and energy fields. I asked if I could write about being a queer woman in the climate/energy fields, and they said yes. The resulting article was published Monday (Aug. 5, 2019):

10 Things I’ve Learned as a Queer Woman in the Climate and Energy Fields
~
The 11th Thing I Learned: What Millennials Want to Know More About

Impakter's mission goes beyond talking about the sustainable development goals-- it also has an express focus on connecting Boomers and Millennials. Well, I'm Gen X, so this isn't exactly my bailiwick, but it gave me an excuse to identify who among my friends are Millennials and ask them what they would like to learn more about on the sustainable development front. (This was before Impakter clarified that it wanted a personal reflection piece from me about my journey in the climate and energy fields.)

For future reference, here is my draft topic list based on my Millennial friends' suggestions.

Gender and Disaster
- Environmental disaster response policy creates exposure to risk when it doesn't account for gender differences
- Women versus men, cis versus transgender, non-binary people's rights in a disaster situation
- The role of official state-sponsored forms of identification in brokering benefits in disaster zone
- Gate-keeping by gender, immigration status

Personal versus Community Resilience
- What are the goals for resilience?
- How do they address structural gaps in resources?
- How far can a resilient mindset minus structural support get you?
- Tips for resilient mindset
- Tips for a more resilient community

Pros and Cons of Community Gardens
- Can they improve food security in a meaningful way in vulnerable communities?
- What cities provide land and funding for community gardens? Are they already relatively resilient cities?
- The apocalyptic view of future food security and possible role of community gardens, practically speaking
- What about just plain green space to address air quality and heat island effects?
- Are green spaces more sustainable/realistic than community gardens for addressing the more pressing climate impacts (more pressing than food insecurity)?
- Community cohesion and returns to community - is that the best role for community gardens?
- Can community gardens combat food deserts and offset gentrification impacts?

Sustainability/Resilience/Public Safety & Microgrids
- Local government and state utility initiatives worth watching
- Private initiatives worth watching

Green Buildings
- LEED certifications  - the sustainable and artistic aspects of these designs.

Interesting Innovations
- Waste water electricity generator?
- Researchers figured out how to grow coral at rapid rates?

Composting Burials
-In Washington State soon you’ll be able to turn a loved one's ashes into compost (more environmentally friendly than cremation) - an initiative led by the Urban Death Project/Recompose

Sustainable Farming
- Agroforestry, hugelkultur
- Other types of sustainable, cool farming systems

In case Impakter comes back to me for more content, I've got a running start.

Friday, July 12, 2019

Ice on Fire: The Cliff's Notes to Proposed Solutions

I was multitasking while watching Leonardo DiCaprio's new climate change documentary Ice on Fire on HBO (directed by Leila Conners). I was expecting it to be all same old same old, "it's almost too late ...but if we all take the bus and eat less meat we'll save the planet!" But after half-listening through it I realized--wait, there were some interesting bits in there. I went back for a re-watch.

Just in case you were also half-listening the first time through, here are the main solutions proposed (between minutes 0:33 - 0:57 and 1:18 - 1:30). Marine snow and the bionic leaf were totally new solutions for me. The six other solutions mentioned were relatively familiar, but I hadn't heard about most of the specific projects the film highlighted as exemplars.

~
Ice on Fire promo image, 2019 (IMDB)

"Climate change can be reversed if we act now," intones DiCaprio. Then Paul Hawken introduces the Drawdown solutions list (2017). Hawken points to the need to scale up solutions faster.

The two main categories of solutions presented are clean energy and sequestration (i.e., pulling carbon dioxide - CO2 - out of the atmosphere and storing or transforming it).

1. Forests (sequestration) (35:54)

The featured project for this solution is a 50,000 private redwood and Douglas fir forest in Mendocino, California, owned by the nonprofit Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc. (RFFI) and managed by the the Usal ("YOU-sall") Redwood Forest Company. They interview the chief forester, Linwood Gill. He explains how the coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is particularly good at sequestering CO2.

They also interview RFFI's North Coast Biochar Project Manager, Raymond Baltar, who talks about how they are taking dead trees (of which California has an overabundance) and turning them into biochar (pyrolyzed wood, essentially charcoal) to amend soil to increase its ability to sequester CO2 and retain water. He points to the potential usefulness of biochar on ag lands that struggle with drought.

My understanding is biochar's usefulness for ag lands is not well understood. How the biochar is made (the degree of heat used), the source wood, how it is applied, the soil it is amending, and the ag product being grown in the amended soil all play roles in its relative effectiveness at improving soil performance. A farmer can't go to the store, buy any bag of biochar, mix it into whatever soil, and expect improved outcomes. At least this is what I heard from researchers from UC Davis speaking at the 2016 Natural Areas Conference. Biochar is also not without its environmental drawbacks, such as toxic dust (Li and Parikh, 2018). It's not a magic bullet. Based on current research, it looks like it could be useful for some farmers, and soil chemists are eagerly studying it.

2. Soil (sequestration) (40:43)

This segment features Kate Scow, a soil microbial ecologist at UC Davis (Land, Air, Water Resources), talking about healthy soil's role in sequestering carbon. She talks about how organic farming using cover crops and compost sequesters as much as eight times more carbon than conventional farming. Read more about research going on at UC Davis exploring soil amendments and grazing treatments for carbon sequestration.

Ron Finely's Urban Farm in Los Angeles is also featured, with Ietef Vita (urban farmer and vegan chef, AKA DJ Cavem) talking about "culinary climate action" with organic community gardens. (Note they misspell his name as "Vida.") Ron Finely doesn't appear in the film, but you can see his 2013 TED Talk "A guerrilla gardener in South Central LA" on Youtube.

3. Kelp and oysters (sequestration) (45:13)

Bren Smith of Thimble Island Ocean Farm in Long Island Sound, a "restorative ocean farming" enterprise, talks about how he watched overfishing destroy the cod fishery. In response he became an oysterman, a more sustainable livelihood. Oysters filter nitrogen out of the water. He also farms kelp, which reduces the acidity of the water through a "halo effect," helping the oysters grow thicker shells. In addition to reducing water acidity, kelp sequesters up to five times more carbon than terrestrial plants. Kelp can also be made into "kelp noodles," fertilizer, and animal feed.

Smith mentions that cattle methane emissions can be cut by 90% if they are fed seaweed. That seems a little high to me. One experiment at UC Davis showed a seaweed additive (Asparagopsis) reducing cattle methane emissions by 58% (per a 2018 article). A type of Asparagopsis, taxiformis, is credited in a June 2019 article with reducing cattle methane emissions by 80% in a study at Penn State. Suffice it to say it bears further study, as do all of these solutions.

4. Marine snow (sequestration) (50:34)

Staša Puškarić, from the Rochester Institute of Technology, Croatia, talks about his proposed plan to speed up the process of the formation of marine snow, or tiny shells and other particles that travel from the ocean surface to the sea floor, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and producing oxygen. He proposes seeding the ocean with minute amounts of iron (6 kg per 100,000 square kilometers of ocean, targeting the southern oceans). This would trigger the formation of marine snow by attracting cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria. His pilot project, named GEA@275, is currently looking for investors.

In a  2016 Forbes article, atmospheric scientist Marshall Shepherd calls marine snow "biological debris" that falls to the sea floor. "Some oceanic carbon dioxide can make it back to the atmosphere, but much of it can reside in the ocean for hundreds to thousands of years. If it makes it to the ocean floor it may reside for millions of years." Given how much CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans, "[a]t this point it is worth exploring the broader role that marine snow plays in the carbon cycle." He stops short of recommending artificially creating marine snow.

5. Onshore wind and solar + storage (clean energy) (53:50)

Hawken chimes in here noting that he was surprised that onshore wind was ranked #2 in the Drawdown list, while solar farms was #8. It is more scale-up-able than solar.

Next, Martin Hermann is shown talking about the Mount Signal Solar Farm in Imperial County, California, and the plans for scaling up solar in southern California. He points to future deployment of photovoltaics at greater scale, and using technology that allows solar to produce energy at night.

A note on Mr. Hermann and the Mount Signal Solar Farm: he is credited in the film as CEO of BrightNight, a small firm which he founded after he left as CEO/co-founder of 8minutenergy, the developer of the Mount Signal Solar Farm, in Dec. 2018, a day after the solar farm was completed. 8minutenergy is currently the largest independent photovoltaic developer in the U.S.

Mr. Hermann doesn't refer to any specific innovation that would allow photovoltaics to produce energy at night. However, an article from July 11, 2019, points to a promising thermal battery being developed at Curtin University that would allow solar to produce energy "overnight."

6. "Direct air capture" (sequestration) (1:18:05)

Christoph Gebald of Climeworks in Switzerland explains his company's CO2-capturing machine that pipes the harvested CO2 to a greenhouse. (Note that they misspell his name as "Christof.") He co-founded the company with Jan Wurzbacher, beginning their work on CO2 direct air capture in 2010.

Mr. Gebald talks about making jet fuel out of the captured CO2, or sequestering it underground and turning it into stone using geothermal heat. The latter approach, the CarbFix Project, is being piloted in Iceland where geothermal is plentiful.

An April 2019 article points out that it costs Climeworks $500-$600 to remove a metric ton of CO2 from the air. One expert quoted in that article says they need to be able to do it for $100/metric ton to be commercially viable. Like a lot of the projects featured in the film, they need investors.

7. The "artificial leaf" and the "bionic leaf" (sequestration? clean energy? both?)

Daniel Nocera, from Harvard University, talks about his artificial leaf and bionic leaf, which work together to turn CO2 and sunlight into possibly marketable products.

He says the artificial leaf improves on natural photosynthesis: it removes CO2 from atmosphere and splits water to hydrogen and oxygen. Then the bionic leaf takes hydrogen from bacteria and makes fuel. Depending on the genetics of the bacteria used, it could make "materials," e.g., drugs or fertilizer. It can use any water including sea water.

He didn't actually talk a lot about the fuel application, but this article from 2016 explains it a little. The Wikipedia page for the bionic leaf lists its possible useful products as fertilizer, bioplastics, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and "other" uses (including "fuel cell").

Nocera's first big published result from 2016 was, essentially, achieving 10 percent efficiency in converting sunlight into alcohol fuels. Then, in 2017 his lab found a way to use a hybrid "catalyst-plus-bacteria" approach to fix nitrogen and make ammonia. According to this 2018 article on the race to invent the artificial leaf: "That is a tantalizing discovery because over 1 percent of global energy is used today in the production of ammonia to fertilize crops and feed the world."

The hope is that it might make a different in the developing world. Nocera's project is being funded by the "First 100 Watts" Program at Harvard, per this 2016 article from Harvard. According to this Jan. 2018 Harvard Gazette article it looks like they are aiming to use the technology to produce fertilizer in India. Nothing more recent is posted on the Nocera Lab's site.

I didn't get the time stamp for this and the last solution because HBO withdrew free access to the film a few days earlier than the posted date.

8. Ocean energy (clean energy)

James Murray and Chris Milne of Orbital Marine Power, in Scotland's Orkney Islands, describe how their floating tidal turbine works. Note that Orbital was called Scotrenewables from its launch in 2010 until October 2018. This CNBC article from Aug. 2018 reports on the results of the first year of testing: "[the] turbine had supplied the equivalent annual electricity demand of roughly 830 U.K. households and, at times, more than 25 percent of the Orkney Islands’ electricity demand." The next step is commercial production.

The film then spends a few minutes with Neil Kermode, Managing Director of the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC), also based in the Orkneys. He talks about the enormous potential for "making electricity out of seawater" (specifically the motion of seawater). We get to see footage of "the Penguin," made by Finnish company Wello Oy, a turbine that generates power from the motion of a pendulum within a vessel bobbing on the waves. You can see other video of the vessel at the Penguin's page on the EMEC site. Another vessel like the Penguin is being built as part of the European Commission's "Clean Energy from Ocean Waves (CEFOW)" initiative. "CEFOW is aiming to be the first project to grid connect an array of wave devices in the UK and to create an efficient supply chain to support larger wave power projects in the future," per EMEC. CEFOW is funded by EU Horizon 2020, the "biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever," focused on promoting sustainable growth through innovation.
~

The rest of the movie is mostly about detecting and measuring climate change and emissions of CO2 and methane. It also touches on the problem of fossil fuel industry-driven disinformation campaigns.

There's a special focus between at the one-hour mark (about 15 minutes' worth) on the uncertainty posed by different kinds of new methane sources, including emissions from oil and gas extraction sites, methane hydrates, and microbial methane (from melting permafrost).

The microbial methane piece (from about 1:15:30 - 1:16:50) is where you see the literal ice on fire referenced in the title and pictured in the promotional graphics. Biogeochemist Katey Walter Anthony ignites methane seeping out of a frozen lake in Alaska against a darkening sky, foomph. She says she is doing "a positive flame test" or "quick gas chromatograph" above the ice of a frozen "methane lake." The visuals are stunning. There's a 2-minute Youtube video posted in 2010 about her work that shows her producing a tremendous methane foomph on a frozen lake at around 1:20.

Note that it was supposed to be streaming free through July 16, 2019, but as of July 12 HBO is asking you to subscribe to see anything beyond the trailer, so boo for that.

Also boo for no Native/First Nations perspectives in the film, but lots of footage of the usual famous old white guys working on climate. I appreciate what they had to say but does it really have to be them saying it on camera? Representation matters.

Friday, May 3, 2019

Ask Me Anything

This week on Facebook I asked my friends to ask my anything about climate change. I was pleased to get some really interesting questions! One friend told me I should share the product of this exercise somehow. So here it is.

My post:
I don't know why but it suddenly occurred to me that some of you might have questions about climate change that you are afraid to ask. I don't have all the answers, but I've been working or lurking in this field for 9 yrs* and might be able to dig up answers where I don't have them. So-- please -- ask me anything about climate change! What do you want to know?
(* I later realized it's been 10 years and spare change, but who's counting.)

Photo by cogdogblog © CC BY 2.0


Q1. Have we really reached the “can’t turn back now” stage?
And another related question: How close is earth to the tipping point?

Q2. What is one small item I should stock in my emergency kit that I may have forgotten? (A question from a friend in the SF Bay Area.)

Q3. Is it bad that I’m rooting for a little sea level rise to wash away the ugly condos between our house and the Hudson River?

Q4. What is one concrete activist goal we could get involved to help make happen, right now?

Q5. Is massive reforestation a viable means of stopping global warming? I've seen these projects that plant millions of trees in a day...

Q6. Regarding the dairy (not meat) side of things: what are the differing effects of grass-fed vs. conventional dairy and what effect will the increased farming of cashews and almonds (as dairy alternatives) have on the environment? (Note: I'm parsing this as a pasture versus feedlot versus nut tree question.)

Q7. What are your thoughts on Project Drawdown's effort to comprehensively quantify greenhouse gas mitigation measures?

Q8. How much of a difference does individual water consumption for showers (not stuff like lawn watering) make in California? I've heard lots of people fretting about how we need to take shorter showers due to droughts, but I'm personally not sure how much difference my few gallons of shower water make, compared to people are still growing almonds and rice in climates that cannot support it...

Q9. What's a scientific answer to whether veganism & vegetarianism are better for the planet?

Q10. The San Francisco MTC is planning for a 3 foot sea level rise by 2050: how likely is 3 feet to come sooner? (I'm reading this as "how likely is San Francisco to have higher than three feet sea level rise by 2050?")

Q11. What do you think poses the greatest existential threat, climate change or the singularity?

Q12. How long till thermohaline circulation stops?

Q13. What's the best estimate for how much methane is held as hydrates that are at risk of melting?



Q1. Have we really reached the “can’t turn back now” stage? 

And: How close is earth to the tipping point?

First question:

Yes and no. Yes, in that there is no "stopping" climate change, that train has left the station. We didn't realize how much heat was being absorbed by the oceans, nor how long it looks like it might take the oceans to return to the temperature we are used to. The trajectory in which Earth returns to pre-industrial temperature ranges is measured in many hundreds of years, maybe a thousand years, taking into account the slow way the ocean warms and cools. So, there is no "turning back" in the sense of we have departed from the historical norms for the foreseeable future. However, the Earth might return to balance someday if we do everything we can to SLOW climate change. If we don't do anything, Earth will become Venus. My understanding is that the point at which Earth will inevitably become Venus has not been reached yet.

Awesome short (7 minute) video by expert climate communicator Katharine Hayhoe on this question "It's too late to do anything about climate change.... right?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv7zFAdZ6LI

Second question: 

Good question! See my answer to a similar question above. We don't know how close we are to making it inevitable that Earth becomes Venus, but all the tipping points in nature that scientists have pointed to as signals of doom are happening faster than expected.

Also, the tipping point that is rarely talked about that you might want to learn about is ocean acidification. We can't fight it, and when the oceans acidify to a certain threshold -- that's it. As one scientist put it (privately) to me: "game over."

A 12 minute video by the Cal Academy on biodiversity and ocean acidification that might help give you a grasp on the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL7qJYKzcsk




Q2. What is one small item I should stock in my emergency kit that I may have forgotten?

For Bay Area people something I did for my emergency kit was get a geological map showing me where the nearest bedrock area is to my home. I think the Bay Area is more at risk of catastrophic earthquake than catastrophic extreme events from climate change. Things will happen, but it will take the shape of Highway 37 being rendered inaccessible for long periods of time, downtown SF being kayak-able during a King Tide, maybe an extra super hot day here and there, but not hurricanes and storm surge or wildfire that takes out all of Oakland or something like that.

Follow-up question from another Bay Area friend: How does one use bedrock location information in an emergency? Is it where to go to avoid aftershocks?

Bingo

Also it's not prone to subduction or liquefaction. So much of the Bay Area is built on fill, you really should know if you are living on fill or bedrock. Check it out.

I can't remember how I dug up the map I put in my emergency kit - it's been a few years - but this looks promising: 
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/soiltype/



Q3. Is it bad that I’m rooting for a little sea level rise to wash away the ugly condos between our house and the Hudson River?

You are entitled to your fantasies! I like the idea of people kayaking around downtown San Francisco. Highway 1 between SF and the airport will be a kayak park someday, in one engineering firm's vision in a design competition held by BCDC in 2009. 
http://www.aiacc.org/.../rising-tides-international.../




Q4. What is one concrete activist goal we could get involved to help make happen, right now? 

Something that surprised me that I learned last week in a presentation on voter behavior at the National Adaptation Forum was that voters who care about the environment tend to NOT VOTE. So right now my answer for you is -- make sure you are registered and tell your friends to get registered or update their registration to vote, and educate yourself on how things on the ballot might affect climate change and how people on the ballot talk about climate change. Fight for access to the vote for disenfranchised people, fight to make voting day a holiday, fight attempts to roll back access to the vote. Teach your kids basic civics (I expect you do). Make voting a part of your core values and tell your friends why you care about it. I'm also hearing from climate scientists that VOTE is their #1 recommended action for people to take if they are scared about climate change.

This friend wanted to know what else she could do...

My other suggestions are along the same lines of civic activism -- let your elected officials know that you support climate action, send them thank you notes when they take unpopular stands on climate change, and if you know anybody living in places dominated by politicians who claim to be climate skeptics tell them to do the same. If the people lead the leaders will follow, etc.

Also, in my humble opinion, fighting income inequality and trying to establish a universal basic income will do a f*-load more for vulnerable populations in terms of giving them options to make good choices for themselves than any new-fangled technology (or old-fangled technology). Yes we need to upgrade and decarbonize our infrastructure but people need to be empowered to get out of harm's way.

She added: I wasn't thinking about technology so much as about policies like the carbon fee proposed in this book: Being the Change by Peter Kalmus

I follow Peter Kalmus on Twitter, but I haven't read his book. What does he propose in terms of a carbon fee? I know that many smart people talk about the need for a carbon fee or tax, some say it's inevitable. If we "internalized the externalities," or baked into the price of things their actual cost including the cost to the environment, it would give the right price signals for a less climate-changey future. It's just not at all politically viable in the U.S. right now. So companies need to impose this fee on themselves to give the right signals to the consumer. And if companies did bake the cost to the environment into their prices, the shock to low-income people would be terrible. So even if companies were inclined to do this, it would need to be done with some public entity providing relief to the worst off, or it would effectively be a regressive tax. If we had decent, affordable public transit in the U.S. it wouldn't be so bad, but imagine if all the non-rich people suddenly couldn't put gas in their cars.

She replied: I'll have to go back and read his proposal but I thought it made sense. He proposed a carbon fee which would be redistributed to citizens as a dividend, so that it would not function as a regressive tax.

It's a funny thing what working in government does to your ability to have faith in government to do something that complicated without screwing over poor people & immigrants somehow. But yeah, in theory, it sounds like a good plan.



Q5. Is massive reforestation a viable means of stopping global warming? I've seen these projects that plant millions of trees in a day...

Good question. (1) "Stopping" global warming isn't an option anymore, sadly. (2) Planting trees can help, depending on where they are planted, what kind of tree, and what kind of maintenance support there is. It's an expensive fix but it is the only geoengineering measure that removes CO2 without creating new uncertainties and disruption. (3) For most of the Earth the superior option is restoring rangeland/prairie and encouraging kelp farming. Resources on that topic linked here: https://pacificadaptation.blogspot.com/2019/02/grasslands-kelp-trees-my-parking-lot-of.html



Q6. Regarding the dairy (not meat) side of things: what are the differing effects of grass-fed vs. conventional dairy and what effect will the increased farming of cashews and almonds (as dairy alternatives) have on the environment? (Note: I'm parsing this as a pasture versus feedlot versus nut tree question.)

You are listening to the sound of my head silently imploding and exploding with ideas of how to respond to your question. My main question when it comes to ag is how is the farmer using water, not what is the carbon footprint of the product. That is my California bias. So you've got the water question and the carbon footprint question. Your farmer might do great managing water and replenishing the groundwater and keeping the water footprint low, and then manage the cattle waste poorly so the farm is a big methane emitter. "Permanent" crops like nut trees have their water impact and their carbon footprint, more the former than the latter (in my bystander understanding), but if lucrative nut trees replace open rangeland (cattle pastures, for example), that has a carbon footprint. Then you've got the question of what happens if we regulate dairy farmers out of existence in the U.S. and thereby offshore the water and carbon impacts by buying dairy from less-regulated places. And you probably know that most of California's almonds are sold to China for almond milk, so that's how those natural resources come back into California, as cash, not a replacement for dairy (yet). OVERALL my thoughts on both dairy and nut tree farming boil down to the importance of getting farmers good climate info in a timely manner. There's nothing we can do about the hunger for almond milk in China but we can incent good water management practices (remote sensor-driven irrigation and the like) and help decarbonize farm infrastructure (which the CA Air Resources Board is working on in the San Joaquin Valley). I have other thoughts but I'll leave these thoughts here and see if my brain spits out anything more cogent.

Grazing can be done really well, in a way that fosters land restoration and native plant growth, and it can be done very destructively. Feedlot farming can do great on the greenhouse gas mitigation front and do horrible things to the land and water around it. There are good reasons to do both grazing and feedlot approaches, it's not a simple equation. My go-to orgs for these questions are CalCAN (http://calclimateag.org/) and...

...CAFF (https://www.caff.org/programs/sustainability/)

Also the problem is cow burps not farts, as you may know. People are looking at this seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis as a possible solution. https://www.technologyreview.com/.../how-seaweed-could.../



Q7. What are your thoughts on Project Drawdown's effort to comprehensively quantify greenhouse gas mitigation measures?

Yes, Project Drawdown has a good list. The organization was created by people from the "Green MBA" program in the Presidio. They favor innovation and market solutions, so that's a bias to be aware of. But I really like Jon Foley, who left the Cal Academy to head up Project Drawdown. He might make it a real organization that does more than publish one book.



Q8. How much of a difference does individual water consumption for showers (not stuff like lawn watering) make in California? I've heard lots of people fretting about how we need to take shorter showers due to droughts, but I'm personally not sure how much difference my few gallons of shower water make, compared to people are still growing almonds and rice in climates that cannot support it...

It's a question of return on investment. When irrigating crops, that water comes back to ground water directly, has benefits for birds & other wildlife, and also translates to $$ for the California economy. So it's a relatively good investment of water compared to lawns (if only grass cuttings could be sold) and extra long showers (the water from which has to be treated, which is an additional cost). There is only so much fresh water, as I'm sure you know, so we need to invest every drop as wisely as possible. The WORST is the way we use treated drinking water to flush toilets. Toilets should be flushed with grey water & at low flow/high efficiency. In the future that is going to have to be mandated. 

Confession: I have a 5 min shower timer and I have never used it. I shower every other day so I say I get a few minutes extra. I also can't deal with the smell & etc. from letting urine sit in my toilet, so I flush every time. I'm no poster child. We should all take shorter/fewer showers and "if it's yellow let it mellow." Also whoever can should collect rainwater in barrels to use in their home and if you have land keep as much of it permeable (not paved) as possible.

Another friend responded: My understanding is it's much less wasteful, gallon for gallon, to use water if it eventually goes down the drain, because that will end up at the water treatment plant for more uses before out to sea. So it's good to cut down on car-washing and lawn-watering, but baths/showers, less so.

Car washing and lawn watering THEORETICALLY recharges ground water, so it isn't wasted water. However because we have such impermeable surfaces around our living areas in cities that car/lawn water tends not to spread and sink but go into drainage pipes that take it right to the sea, untreated. So it is more polluting of the sea than water that goes down the drain. But if you had a nice place with bioswales and other features that slowed, spread, and sunk the car/lawn water, then you are doing the local groundwater a favor, returning tap water to the land.

A really interesting project is trying to capture water that goes down storm drains (like car/lawn water), treating it, and returning it to the tap rather than letting it run to the sea. Los Angeles could supply all of its water needs from storm water if it could capture the water in storm drains (from rain in the mountains) -- so I believe LA is trying out some "internet of water" sensors to capture and store storm drain runoff during and after storms. Someday all the storm drain water might need to be captured and at least turned into grey water for use in toilets and other appropriate grey water uses.



Q9. What's a scientific answer to whether veganism & vegetarianism are better for the planet?

Any food can be healthy or not-- for you and the planet-- including meat. I'm just talking about environmental/physical health here (not ethical health, which is between you and your gods and ancestors, not a matter of public policy). Science doesn't say "go vegetarian" or "go vegan" - what it does say is it's good to reduce the meat in your diet, for lots of reasons. I just learned that among marine animals farmed mussels have the lowest carbon footprint/g protein, which surprised me. I would have guessed wild salmon. Poultry is the lowest of land animals (link attached to where I got that). Now, if you are more concerned about pollution from farming, that goes to the farming practice/ size of enterprise more than the type of meat, I think. Another surprising thing I heard from an ag researcher recently is that small family farms that get big are the WORST for bad environmental practices. Big farms that started out big are prepared for and responsive to regulations. Small farms that get big are not. Anyway, the impact of our food choices on the planet is a very important, complex question. Source for GHG per gram of protein by food type - https://ourworldindata.org/.../greenhouse-gas-emissions...

More on that, if you can get institutional access to a behind-a-paywall article - https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../fee.1822

And the source for the farmed mussels being lowest in carbon footprint/g protein - http://seafoodco2.dal.ca/

Specifically this graph: 
https://twitter.com/SarahEMyhre/status/1123294443862257664

This relevant article just came out yesterday [April 30, 2019]. It has a lot of the same info I linked to above but put in a very stylish and user-friendly layout (if you have access to the NYT) - https://www.nytimes.com/.../climate-change-food-eating...



Q10. The San Francisco MTC is planning for a 3 foot sea level rise by 2050: how likely is 3 feet to come sooner? (I'm reading this as "how much sea level rise is San Francisco going to see by 2050?")

MTC is using a controversial projection that uses a probabilistic model (if they are using the California state guidance). They are hedging on the side of caution, using a high estimate for the worst case scenario. Personally, I think it's a good idea. The head of climate change for SF PUC is not so sure it's a good idea to overengineer at this point. The high estimate came from a paper on a particular ice shelf melting in Antarctica (DeConto and Pollard 2016). That ice shelf paper used ONE model of climate change projections and ONE model of ice behavior. Since that paper came out the scientists have done more work and gotten peer feedback and moderated their estimates. I'm attaching the guidance that I believe MTC is basing their planning on: http://www.opc.ca.gov/.../rising-seas-in-california-an...

Here's the DeConto and Pollard (2016) paper that put everyone's neck hairs on end: http://www.documentcloud.org/.../2823837-DeConto-Pollard...

Here's an article on how DeConto and Pollard stepped back their alarming prediction: https://www.theatlantic.com/.../sea-level-rise.../579478/

And on the other hand, this article just came out - https://www.independent.co.uk/.../ross-ice-shelf...

The long and the short is that of all the climate change-driven models out there the ones modeling ice behavior are the newest and least tested. We are building blind at this point, hoping we don't under-engineer.

My friend replied: 16 feet!! That would be bad for countries with large coastal populations and major port cities ... and maybe advantageous to those that don't. Is there anything unclassified that deals with the geopolitical scenarios that might result?

Low-lying island nations have been pointing out the existential threat posed to them by sea level rise for over a decade now. I believe the Maldives has purchased land and is beginning the move process. Indonesia is in the news lately because they are starting the process of moving their capital from Java, which is sinking.There is lots of open discussion about climate refugees from future sea level rise. Bangladesh is a particular concern. All the major populated river deltas in Southeast Asia are particular concerns. The U.S. Naval Atlantic Fleet is run out of Norfolk, VA, that has been preparing for sea level rise for a long time now (though it isn't discussed very clearly/openly as a climate change problem). Turns out sea level rise isn't like filling a bathtub, sea levels rise differently in different places, and Virginia is like ground zero for the fastest sea level rise on any U.S. coast. So our military has had it on its radar for a long time. Pick a location and Google it plus "sea level rise" and you'll find lots out there written about geopolitical implications.



Q11. What do you think poses the greatest existential threat, climate change or the singularity?

I'm guessing you are joking but in case you aren't I don't know, since I don't really believe in the singularity, but just cuz I don't believe in it doesn't mean it won't end the world

My friend conceded: I've been reading about the singularity and becoming convinced it will happen in some form or another, though I don't think we really know how it will happen or when. Climate change is a lot more predictable.



Q12. How long till thermohaline circulation stops?

Oh god I hope not soon, jeez. The impact of climate change on ocean dynamics is almost as little understood as the melting of land ice at the poles (compared to impact on temperature and land processes associated with it). For sure people are studying it but I haven't run across anything that projects a timeline on the thermohaline.

This is a nice juicy link-rich article on the topic from last year, which should give you some idea of how much we know about this problem https://insideclimatenews.org/.../atlantic-ocean...



Q13. What's the best estimate for how much methane is held as hydrates that are at risk of melting? (Note: hydrates = ice crystals containing another element or compound. Methane hydrates = ice crystals containing methane molecules. See the U.S. Department of Energy methane hydrate explainer, it has a good graphic.)

First, I'm not an oceanographer or permafrost specialist, so I wouldn't know if there was new hot research on this topic emerging. I follow a lot of ocean and cryosphere/polar scientists on Twitter (it's a special interest of mine, the loss of ice-based animals and cultures), but I don't know if anyone I follow is researching under-ocean/permafrost-trapped methane at risk of release through melting. I'm sure I've seen something about the estimated amount of methane in play here (and it's a lot, like a lot a lot) but the real question is what is the real probability of it being released, which nobody knows. What I *do* know is the ocean science course I took (Intro to the Marine Environment at Laney College, taught by a guy who cared a lot about students understanding climate change impacts on the ocean) thought that the hype about the methane at the bottom of the ocean being released and causing catastrophic sudden climate change was waaaaay overblown. He believed it was NOT the thing we should be worrying about. Now, the methane being released from permafrost is another thing, and I just saw a new report show up on my radar yesterday about this. Let me go dig it out of the internet. -- BY THE WAY FOR THE UNINITIATED -- Methane is a super-charged greenhouse gas. Although it dissipates much faster than CO2, it is far more dangerous in terms of its heat-trapping potential. It's roughly 30 times more dangerous than CO2.

OK here it is, an opinion piece that came out in Nature on Tuesday [April 30, 2019] about what research is needed on the question of greenhouse gases/permafrost. It includes an estimate of how much carbon is held in permafrost as compared to the atmosphere (twice as much in permafrost). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01313-4

And here is a Twitter thread recommended by my favorite paleoecologist on permafrost - doesn't say much on the question of methane but it explains the melting process we are seeing in the tundra - https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1123561998820806656
I haven't read this yet but it looks competently written - the source has been cited by people I deem credible - https://www.seeker.com/.../heres-what-scientists-know...

MORE ON METHANE - I didn't remember that it is much more potent initially - 80+ times more potent than CO2 after release - https://www.edf.org/.../methane-other-important...