Implications of Arctic Permafrost Thaw

Of the many “Elephants in the Room” in the climate change debate, none are larger than the potential release to atmosphere of carbon dioxide and methane contained in the Arctic permafrost. Preliminary findings from the latest research, discussed at the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) annual conference in San Francisco in December 2011, highlighted the extreme risks that humanity is now exposed to from global warming.

The Arctic has been warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, one consequence being that the volume of Arctic sea ice has reduced dramatically, by around 80% in summer since 1979, far faster than expected. If current trends continue, the Arctic may be sea ice-free in summer by around 2015, and all year by around 2030. This would likely lead to further positive warming feedback as the ice albedo effect diminishes, accelerating melt of the Greenland ice sheet, ultimately contributing several metres of sea level rise.

Such warming would also accelerate thawing of the Arctic permafrost, which contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. Releasing that carbon would accelerate global warming past tipping points which create a climate far less conducive to human evolution. The permafrost, along with clathrates on the seabed, contain large quantities of methane, with a warming potential twenty five times greater than carbon dioxide.

CO2 and methane release in the Arctic has been observed for some time, but the latest findings suggest this may be accelerating rapidly. The AGU discussion prompted a flurry of scientific commentary on the implications – whether the acceleration is real, whether the cause is anthropogenic or natural, whether the release mechanism might be abrupt or gradual. It is too early to understand the full implications. The complete scientific analysis of the latest evidence will be available later this year, but the preliminary findings should be a wake-up call to us all.

In risk management terms, these observations emphasise, as never before, the need for emergency action to reduce human carbon emissions. If permafrost thawing is allowed to accelerate, we may have little means of stopping it. Over time, this would be catastrophic, probably leading to global mean temperature increasing well over 4oC compared to pre-industrial levels, with a global carrying capacity of 1 billion people rather than the current 7 billion.

Our inaction today may well be guaranteeing such an outcome, which is why emergency action is needed now. This highlights the total inadequacy and empty rhetoric of the so-called “ Platform for Enhanced Action” agreed at the Durban UNFCCC Climate Conference last December. Waiting to negotiate an agreement by 2015, for implementation from 2020, meaning it will have little effect for years afterwards, when human emissions are at an all-time high accelerating faster than ever, the permafrost thaw is most likely accelerating rapidly and none of the supposed technological fixes for human emissions, such as carbon capture and storage, are working, is nothing less than suicidal.

The critical flaw is our inability, or refusal, to address risk and uncertainty realistically. The scientific community gives increasingly urgent warnings on the mounting evidence of anthropogenic warming and the need for rapid emission reductions. At the same time they rightly set out the uncertainties involved, but those uncertainties relate less to the fundamentals, far more to the impact of the warming (eg there is no doubt warming is occurring, the uncertainty is whether it will be a 4°C or a 7°C temperature increase). Officialdom chooses to ignore these warnings, preferring policy based on “political realism”, shorthand for hoping the problem will go away. Business, supposedly the experts on risk management, should take leadership, but have abrogated any responsibility, given that realistic action will require a fundamental redesign of the economic system, undermining established vested interests. The result is that nobody is seriously addressing the strategic risks to which we are exposed.

Conventional politics is incapable of handling this issue. Leadership is totally lacking within the political and corporate worlds; global and national institutions are failing here, as they are failing to address the financial crisis – on both counts economic growth is the problem, not the solution. The priority for 2012 must be to develop new mechanisms which, with community support, go around conventional politics and vested interests. Climate change is now a far bigger risk than any financial crisis and yet the real effort devoted to managing it is miniscule in comparison.

Realism needed on Carbon Capture and Storage

Sequestering say 20% of current global CO2 emissions requires an industry around 170% the size of the world oil industry. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) may make a significant contribution to addressing climate change, but:

  • not in the short term, to prevent atmospheric carbon concentrations above 450ppm CO2e
  • not at the scale to be the global panacea for coal & gas
  • Extremely dangerous to put all our eggs in the CCS basket, as we are doing
  • Irresponsible to lock-in carbon-ready facilities before viability of CCS at scale is proven
  • Research should be accelerated to prove its real potential we need to keep all our options open, but be objective !

We must have consistent industry & government commitment, support and funding, not lipservice, recognising we need an emergency response if we are serious about addressing climate risk.

CCS is a classic case of Moral Hazard.

The world’s leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable

The Economist, 5th March 2009

Source for graphic: The Ecological Wealth of Nations, Global Footprint Network, 2010

Corporate Heads in the Sand:Global Warming, Risk & Governance

Global warming is about risk and uncertainty. Many factors are probably contributing to it, including natural variability. However, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human carbon emissions are a major contributor. The risks of destabilizing the climatic equilibrium under which humanity as we know it has developed through the 11,000 years of the Holocene period are now escalating rapidly.

The glaring omission in current national discourse is any mention of these risks. The credible climate scientists have been sounding urgent warnings for some time. Politicians interpret these warnings in terms of “political reality”, proposing action which is far from that required. There is virtually no-one addressing the real risks. The science on an issue this complex will not be settled for a long time, but that requires even greater prudence in managing risk and uncertainty, particularly where climatic changes may be sudden and irreversible.

Sound corporate governance requires boards of directors to act honestly, in good faith and to the best of their ability in the interests of the company in perpetuity. They must also ensure risks are identified and suitable systems put in place to manage those risks. Global and national institutions are now indicating that global warming is one of the greatest risks we face, in both the short and long term. Thus its risk management should be a major concern and responsibility of the corporate sector, a responsibility the sector in Australia has steadfastly refused to acknowledge.

Which makes recent public pronouncements by some corporate luminaries of particular concern;

David Murray, Chair of the Future Fund, opined that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant, there was no correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming, and that the amount of ice in the world was slightly increasing, not decreasing (AFR “Lunch with David Murray” 10th June 2010)

Belinda Hutchison, Chair of QBE Insurance, stated that the recent natural disasters in Queensland had nothing to do with climate change, as demonstrated by “research received” (SMH “QBE blames La Nina for Disasters” 20th April 2011).

Dick Warburton, Chair of the Board of Taxation, Citigroup and other public companies, Peter Farrell, Chair of Resmed, and Geoff Lehmann, poet and tax specialist, re-iterated at length minority scientific opinion, accepting that carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on global temperature, but implying that the sensitivity of temperature to increasing carbon dioxide concentration was far less than claimed by majority scientific opinion, to the point that the effect was unimportant. The bottom line being that “Adaptation to adverse climate change, if and when it does occur, may be the best and only viable strategy.” (Quadrant “The Intelligent Voters Guide to Global Warming”, March/April 2011),

These categoric statements stand in stark contrast to the opinion of major Academies of Science around the world and key scientific organisations such as the CSIRO, WMO, BoM, NOAA etc. that most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities and that urgent action is required to reduce emissions if potentially catastrophic outcomes are to be avoided.

The risk equation is simple. If we take serious action to reduce emissions, the cost is likely to be a manageable 3-5% of GDP, increasing the longer action is delayed. If global warming turns out to be as the scientific majority believe, with major adverse implications, we are as prepared as we can be to minimise the effects, and to adapt to those we cannot avoid. If the minority view proves correct, with minimal climate impact, we end up with a cleaner, less polluted and healthier environment.

If we take no action and the minority view proves correct, then it is “business-as-usual”. On the other hand, if the majority view proves correct, the world faces catastrophic outcomes totally unprepared, with an impact potentially worse than the Great Depression, WW1 & WW2 combined and a global carrying capacity of less than 1 billion people compared with 7 billion today. The impact on Australia would be particularly severe.

The empirical evidence of what might be termed the key performance indicators of global warming – melting of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and ice sheets, mountain glaciers and permafrost, ocean acidification, declining natural carbon sinks – all suggests that the warming impact is accelerating ahead of the scientist’s previous expectations. This is reinforced by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, particularly over the last decade.

In this context, the need for urgent precautionary action should be obvious.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this issue. It is reasonable to assume that the public statements above are reflected in the corporate approach to global warming being taken by organisations with which those individuals are involved. That would not be of great moment, except that those organisations exercise substantial influence and corporate power, with a major impact on Australian society.

Sound governance requires that directors take a balanced view of risk and uncertainty. To propose a strategy of either denial, or wait, see and adapt, in the light of current empirical evidence and the balance of expert advice, is a serious breach of fiduciary responsibility, both corporately and nationally – a breach which is only too evident in the current business approach to carbon pricing.

It is high time major Australian corporations acknowledged the real risks we confront, took leadership in implementing genuine precautionary measures urgently, and in particular woke up to the opportunities these present.

An edited version of this article was published in the Australian Financial Review on 23rd June 2011.