Hurricane Sandy coverage: Do Fraser Nelsons arguments for dropping carbon cutting policies stack up?
As part of our look at media coverage linked to Hurricane Sandy, we look at Telegraph columnist Fraser Nelson’s arguments in favour of dropping attempts to slow climate change and focusing on adapting to new conditions.
Hurricane Sandy has prompted new interest in the media over the links between climate change and extreme weather, but journalist Fraser Nelson took a different tack. Writing in the Telegraph, he says New York’s response to the storm shows that while efforts to mitigate climate change are faltering, humans are already adapting successfully to the effects of higher temperatures. He says:
“[A]s science evolves, the hysteria is draining out of the climate change debate – and a new rationalism taking its place. We might not be sure that we can make any meaningful difference to its trajectory, but we know that we can adapt to it.”
To support his argument, Nelson makes several claims about research on climate change and extreme weather and the ability of different countries to adapt. We take a look at some of them.
Climate and extreme weather
Nelson first claims there is not enough scientific evidence to link climate change to extreme weather. He says:
“The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the extent of mankind’s influence on extreme weather events is uncertain – and may not be clear for another 30 years.”
But this overstates the uncertainties present in the science. If Nelson is referring to tropical cyclones, like Sandy, some elements of the science are more certain than others.
The IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters ( SREX p158) says with satellite data from only the past 40 years, it’s hard to distinguish changes in the frequency of tropical cyclones from natural variability.
There is, however, evidence these storms have been getting stronger. The report refers to a “significant upward trend in the intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones” over the satellite era.
While evidence is growing for the physical link between storm intensity and human activity, the IPCC is cautious in pinning down a long term trend with the data we have so far.
Nelson also seems to be attributing the same uncertainty to all severe weather events, in which case his science is on even shakier ground. While storms are inherently complex, scientists have been able to link other extreme events, like heatwaves and extreme rainfall events, to human-induced climate change.
Unfair burden
Nelson adds that carbon-cutting policies will disproportionately affect developing countries’ ability to progress. He says:
“Fossil fuel consumption in the rich world peaked five years ago; the rise now comes from poorer countries, where millions are living longer, better (and yes, more carbon-intensive) lives. It would be impossible, not to say sadistic, to try to impede such progress.”
This is probably correct at the moment: according to a the BP Statistical Review of World energy, in 2011 “emerging economies accounted for all the net growth in energy consumption, with demand in the OECD falling for a third time in the last four years.”
It’s worth looking at the effect that abandoning carbon-cutting policies may have. According to International Energy Agency scenarios, whether or not countries put in place carbon-cutting measures could make the difference between rise in global temperature of four degrees Celsius and, based even on current policy trends, a six-degree rise in the long term.
Rich enough to adapt
What could vulnerable countries have to contend with by 2050? Nelson says:
“When environmentalists predict doom for countries like Bangladesh, this is what they forget. Their computer models assume that as sea levels rise, millions of Bangladeshis will become environmental refugees by 2050. But the same model assumes that Bangladesh will, by then, be as rich as Britain is today. If so, it is fairly likely that it will be able to afford the odd flood defence.”
According to the IPCC AR4 report, a conservative estimate of sea level rise in Bangladesh by the end of the century, assuming no adaptation, is 45 cm. This would expose 5.5 million people living in vulnerable areas, or five per cent of the population.
But will Bangladesh be rich enough to protect these areas by 2050? We can’t find any IPCC model that suggests that Bangladesh will, by then, be as rich as Britain is today. In a global economics paper from 2011 (p10), Goldman Sachs estimated Bangladesh’s GDP per capita in 2050 at less than US$10,000 compared to the current figure of around US$35,000 for the UK.
Money’s not the only issue – the AR4 report warns flood defences may not help the most vulnerable in low-lying countries. It says:
“Response strategies that are based solely on tackling the physical parameters of risks from sea-level rise and tropical cyclones have been shown in some circumstances to enhance the vulnerability of certain parts of the population-usually those with least ability to influence decisionmaking.”
So adapting to climate change requires more than flood defences – it will also require deep social changes to make sure the most vulnerable aren’t left behind.
Gaining ground
Bangladesh is already making “incredible progress” toward shoring up against sea level rise, Nelson adds. He says:
“[Bangladesh’s] government scientists say that its land mass is expanding, not contracting, a trend that is set to continue as they get better at building dams.”
We think Nelson is referring to recent reports suggesting sediment redistributed by the Ganges, Brahmaputra and other rivers is adding around 20 square kilometres of land mass each year. But as the BBC has reported, the IPCC says new land is created much slower than the rate at which sea levels are rising.
In 2010, the Bangladeshi government approved a dam-building project to reclaim a further 600 square kilometres of land in the next five years by connecting up sediment islands. Again, we looked and found no evidence that land elevation, rather than simply land mass, is increasing fast enough to mitigate projected sea level rise in the coming decades.
“New rationalism”
Adaptation has long been underplayed in national and international climate politics in favour of more virtuous-sounding mitigation policies. But Nelson’s picture of a “new rationalism” distorts some important calculations governments and other bodies need to make when they balance mitigation against adaptation.