World of 2030

[El Cid]

And so what does the Indonesian government do with their unlivable city? They move the capital into the middle of Borneo (with no roads and not much infrastructure, a pretty pristine area), into a city that is surrounded by jungle, so that even this last refuge of the orangutan will be destroyed as millions will flock there from Jakarta and other cities. Clever indeed. Welcome to the world of 2030!

[kassy]

Sea level rise always works together with local subsidence and local geographic features (Bangladesh for example).

<yet, no refugees!>

There was a photoseries on the BBC last year about Jakarta´s poor living with flooding. They still had lessons in a flooded school (it suffered nuisance flooding). They lived and worked in similar situations.

If you are just making a living in a spot with no savings or garantees of a job when you move it might just not be an option.  These people will be refugees but only when they really can not live there anymore.

[bluice]

Indonesia will build a new capital in Borneo to replace Jakarta. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/indonesia-new-capital-city-borneo-forests-jakarta

I doubt it’s inhabitants will be called climate refugees which in fact shows how difficult it will be to pinpoint who exactly is forced to relocate due to climate change.

Which brings us to the topic. I’m sceptical that we see any meaningful action to bring global co2e emissions down before 2030. I’m quite certain however that there will be major steps in adaptation to changing climate. Even diehard denialists such as the aussie PM can no longer pretend AGW isn’t happening.

[The Walrus]

Indonesia will build a new capital in Borneo to replace Jakarta. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/indonesia-new-capital-city-borneo-forests-jakarta

I doubt it’s inhabitants will be called climate refugees which in fact shows how difficult it will be to pinpoint who exactly is forced to relocate due to climate change.

Which brings us to the topic. I’m sceptical that we see any meaningful action to bring global co2e emissions down before 2030. I’m quite certain however that there will be major steps in adaptation to changing climate. Even diehard denialists such as the aussie PM can no longer pretend AGW isn’t happening.

There will likely be no climate refugees, as the country has no plans to move the residents of Jakarta.  The only thing being moved is the government offices and employees.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(

Well, a few cms is the difference between just below my lips and just above my nostrils.
Every inch heightens coastal erosion.

[ArcticMelt2]

As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

[nanning]

You're receiving money from the Government, aren't you? Is it totally clean money?

Do I have a choice? Do I have any influence on that? I haven't voted for this government. I didn't choose to be unemployed.
But I did choose to be poor before I became unemployed, i.e. no accumulation.

You preserve them from wolves attacks and they give you some wool in exchange.

No, they don't. You have to take it off them. There's a difference.

Don't you guys (El Cid and Aporia_filia) have any limits? Is this affluence?
Why are homeless people not moving in? Or invited even?

OK, maybe no drama for most of us, but utter misery for some.

Thanks gerontocrat.

El Cid, I am curious where you live.

[nanning]

As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?

[ArcticMelt2]

As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?

Not so bad. For example, now forest cover in England is equal to around 1400. It is expected that by 2060 she will return in about 1250.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom

Historical woodland cover of England. The Domesday Book of 1086 indicated cover of 15%, "but significant loss of woodland started over four thousand years ago in prehistory". By the beginning of the 20th century this had dropped to 5%. The government believes 12% can be reached again by 2060.[18]

As you can see, forests are now recovering much faster than they were cut down before.

[The Walrus]

As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?

Not so bad. For example, now forest cover in England is equal to around 1400. It is expected that by 2060 she will return in about 1250.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom

Historical woodland cover of England. The Domesday Book of 1086 indicated cover of 15%, "but significant loss of woodland started over four thousand years ago in prehistory". By the beginning of the 20th century this had dropped to 5%. The government believes 12% can be reached again by 2060.[18]

As you can see, forests are now recovering much faster than they were cut down before.

Probably the combination of warmer temps, increased precipitation, and higher CO2 levels.

[ArcticMelt2]

For comparison, here is the population of England over the past thousand years:



As you can see, agricultural productivity has been growing all this time, and now we do not need as much land as in the Middle Ages.

In the future, land will need even less due to depopulation and robotization.

[Aporia_filia]

From nanning: is that affluence?

I'm living on less than 6.000€ a year.

Do I have a choice?

Good question.
And I don't understand "any limits"

[El Cid]

The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive

[bluice]

The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

[nanning]

Thanks bluice.

Aporia_filia, from your description as a land owner, I have misjudged your monetary wealth. But owning land is a form of wealth as well because most people don't own land. And my limits question was based on that so sorry again for my misjudgement.

I liked your welcoming 'invitation' and then posed a question about sharing with the disadvantaged:

"Why are homeless people not moving in? Or invited even?"

Not to make you feel guilty or anything like that because it is completely normal behaviour to not share land and property. I could have posed the same question to Bruce Steele or sidd who own land. You are people I respect because of your higher morality and awareness.

It is just a question from a poor person without land/allotment (which was where this little discussion started if I'm correct). But I am not homeless or deprived compared to most other poor people, living in a northern rich country with a (degrading) functioning social security system. Well, not for the homeless of course. For a higher morality intelligent social security system you need to look at Finland.
El Cid won't be open to these questions I assume.

[El Cid]

...El Cid won't be open to these questions I assume.

Unfortunately I am not Mother Teresa, and that is why I do not invite the homeless.

[El Cid]

The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

Now, PPP comes up implying that although wages are smaller, prices are also lower, so all is good.

1) wages here are much lower than prices vs W.Europe. See map here (net average salary adjusted for living costs in PPP), this shows the actual buying power of salaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#Net_average_monthly_salary_(adjusted_for_living_costs_in_PPP)

2) Hungary in very much Budapest-centric. The people in and around the capital live quite well even by global standards. Wages are much higher than in the countryside.

3) In poorer countries wages are lower, therefore the price of non-tradable goods (mostly services, which contain a very big human labour input) is significantly lower. However, tradable goods, say wheat or steel have the same price all around the globe, precisely because they are tradable. Now, the poorer you are the more tradable goods (commodities) you consume and PPP won't help you out. The richer you are, the more services you consume. So a relatively richer man in a poor country lives much better than his/her salary would suggest, but it is not true for the poorer people. That is why (plus because of the above point 2) I did not generally say "people in Hungary" but "people in the countryside".

[sidd]

Oddly enuf, we have had couple homeless guyz coming and working forawhile. One hung for a couple months, the other out after a couple weeks.

Consider: nearest grocery an hour away driving across two ridges, nearest hardware store half that distance, nearest hospital two hours, nearest pharmacy one hour,  nearest town of any size  two hours. (Nearest bar half an hour.) In good weather. All bets off in bad.

No cellfone reception. One landline. Two radio stations reception, both Christian radio. No cable, no broadcast TV. Slo satellite internet, goes out in storms.

And nobody comes by except the neighbours. Two vehicles coming by in an hour is rush hour, see that Fridays sometimes.

Your world needs planning weeks, months, years in advance on an isolated farm, as Bruce knows. They weren't good at it. We helped as much as we could, set em up with bank accounts which they didnt have, so we could pay em. Got one of em a lawyer so he could get off a stupid charge. But they couldn't hack it, went back to the city, possibly to the street.

I know the family of one of them that's how i knew him His dad and brother would have nuttn to do with the guy. He inherited some of his dads talents, could do welds that looked like they grew there. When he was sober. I heard he eventually wound up in a mental institution. Dunno what happened to the other guy.

We quit doin that after those two. We can't be there all the time, and it is very possible to kill yourself with farm equipment. Which both came close to doin. Not to speak of trashing the place on occasion while non sober.

Nowadays nobody there until we know them well and trust them enuf.

sidd

[oren]

Thanks for sharing sidd. The difference between theory and practice is often enlightening.

[nanning]

Yes thanks sidd. I expected something like that. But of course homeless people are not all the same.

[Aporia_filia]

Nanning, you were saying not feeling comfortable where you were living. That's why I wondered why you were not considering any other option and I mentioned some of them.

Where I live now I have all the problems that Sidd mentioned. But the paths are only for real 4x4 vehicles. And when rain or snow are hard, like now, you can only walk in or out, with a short cut of 2 hours walking (if you're fit) and 400m unevenness. No paid work possible, no shops, no TV, evasive satellite internet, telephone only with good weather... I haven't seen humans in two weeks now.

When I work for some of the locals I never charge them any money, they give me some food in exchange.

When I lost my eco-farm (because of a wrong marriage) that I had worked so hard that now is difficult to imagine (like having both joints of my right thumb broken and didn't stop working) I took your very same determination: I was going to live poor, BUT in close relation with nature and not depending on anyone. I don't have any incomes (my very old parents still send me a couple of hundreds for xmast or birthday) but I pay taxes. Taxes as if I were working just to have the chance of a decent pension in 9 years time. Taxes, as every other poor or not, to buy food (VAT) or any other item. I haven't and won't ask for any Government help.

"Reality is merely an illusion" and mine is feeling free.

I don't like the idea of owning land, but is a MUST if you want to live like I do. The price of the square meter is less than 0.5 euros, in part because you are advise that services do not work in a Natural Park. You have to look after yourself and the paths and there are very tight restrictions to change anything.

By the way, when I lived in Valencia I had an illegal Moroccan staying for two months at home. It was impossible to do something else for him so he left to Mallorca looking for any luck. An abandoned Russian sailor stayed with my aunt's family for two years. My cousin is working in Africa helping refugees since the 90s. I grew up in a healthy cooperative atmosphere.

[nanning]

Thanks for that wonderful description and personal story Apotia_filia. You answered my question and are living like I would like to live. But I would have no idea how to stay alive. I don't even have tools. Do you have a car?
Hard work outside and hardship don't frighten me. I am almost looking for it. But I don't know how to live without money to buy stuff.
Are you living with a partner?

  "I grew up in a healthy cooperative atmosphere."
I almost envy you. And I want to pay my compliments and respect for your views of living nature and other people in need/abandoned. A very big virtual hug from me!

We pleasantly disagree here: "Reality is merely an illusion".
I have found reality outside of any illusions in my research. And I understand what reality means from any lifeform's perspective.

I need to correct some wrong idea about me Aporia_filia: I can't imagine having complained about the place where I have moved to, where I live now. Perhaps you've read about my lack of contacts here? I am now living in a village and this is paradise for me compared to Amsterdam. I can't overstate my almost daily joy of the surrounding living nature and the completely different people, being much more open, interesting and kind. And Frisian of course, which I am also, and can speak the language all the time (and get better at it).
Comfortable is not a word I use or has importance in my life.

I am thinking sometimes about traveling to another place and how to do it. My sister lives in Switzerland. And Extramadura is nice but I don't talk Iberian

[Aporia_filia]

No, nanning, I don't have a human partner but, as I said, some animal partners.
I have an old car that hate using. Living on your own is not environmentally friendly! Unless you managed to be totally self sufficient. That's why I like the idea of some conscious neighbors.

It looks as if I also misunderstood you about how you felt in your neighborhood. Sorry.
Is not the first time you mentioned being totally certain about something. We have to disagreed. You know my alias.
I studied psychology just for fun and the perception subject teach you to be very aware of what you see. So, much more care needed for what you think. Our brain is built to cheat ourselves.

http://illusionoftheyear.com/

[PragmaticAntithesis]

I think 2030 will come just before we start seeing the worst of climate change. If temperature rises continue at a similar rate to that of 1980-2019 (0.18°C/decade), we will be around +1.3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

A September BOE may have already happened, but the water will not have had enough time to warm up and stop being the centre of coldness, so the jetstream and gulf stream will both still carry on (though their days will be very much numbered).

Land ice and permafrost will be melting even more rapidly than they are today, but that will only cause a few centimetres of sea level rise, as the latent heat of fusion of water combined with the sheer depth of the ice acts as a very effective heat sink, delaying the big melt.

One impact I think we will be feeling the brunt of by 2030 is increased weather disasters. With warmer oceans, a weakened jetstream, and the potential of wet bulb temperature causing areas to become uninhabitable, I think we'll start seeing a lot more "natural" disasters.

I think by 2030 we'll be screwed, but not dead.

[The Walrus]

I think 2030 will come just before we start seeing the worst of climate change. If temperature rises continue at a similar rate to that of 1980-2019 (0.18°C/decade), we will be around +1.3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

A September BOE may have already happened, but the water will not have had enough time to warm up and stop being the centre of coldness, so the jetstream and gulf stream will both still carry on (though their days will be very much numbered).

Land ice and permafrost will be melting even more rapidly than they are today, but that will only cause a few centimetres of sea level rise, as the latent heat of fusion of water combined with the sheer depth of the ice acts as a very effective heat sink, delaying the big melt.

One impact I think we will be feeling the brunt of by 2030 is increased weather disasters. With warmer oceans, a weakened jetstream, and the potential of wet bulb temperature causing areas to become uninhabitable, I think we'll start seeing a lot more "natural" disasters.

I think by 2030 we'll be screwed, but not dead.

What type of weather disasters do you believe will occur then?  If the changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Age are any indication, then we would expect a net decrease in weather disasters.

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf

[oren]

Nicely written PA.

[El Cid]

That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

1,5 C is no magic threshold, it is a made-up number to make politicians do something finally and threatening them with a precise, round number, telling them that if that number is breached we are doomed.

Nothing special will happen at 1.5 C, certainly no apocalypse.

[Shared Humanity]

Anybody got a guess of what we get in the next 10 years?

Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(

Sorry, sea level rise will be a catastrophe long before the end of this century and already is very problematic for some coastal regions. In parts of Miami, sewer systems fail periodically, spilling raw sewage into streets and this occurs with sunny day flooding.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239005633.html

The 1st thing to fail in our coastal cities will be sewer systems. The water does not need to be higher than ground level. Rising water tables are filling sewer systems with ground water, rendering them periodically inoperable and eventually causing them to fail entirely.

No city can survive without a functioning waste water system.

[kassy]

1,5C is not a magical treshhold but 1C would have been much more sensible as we can conclude from seeing a world overshooting that.

Then there are those other little details like us murdering the Amazon and converting lots of other old growth forests into something else. Actively destroying the sinks.

While we are also adding fun elements in the mix which do not have historical comparisons.

Also the point is not apocalypse but the suffering of billions most of whom have not really contributed much to our current predicament.

[kassy]

Per the linked article, NOAA and NASA find that "… 2019 was 1.22°C (2.19°F) above the pre-industrial baseline temperature."

Title: "2019 in Review: Global Temperature Rankings"

https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/2019-in-review-global-temperature-rankings

Extract: "NOAA and NASA’s global temperature data is in, naming 2019 the 2nd hottest year on Earth since records began and making the 2010s the hottest decade on record.

GL with 1,3C in 2030.

[Shared Humanity]

1,5C is not a magical treshhold but 1C would have been much more sensible as we can conclude from seeing a world overshooting that.

Then there are those other little details like us murdering the Amazon and converting lots of other old growth forests into something else. Actively destroying the sinks.

While we are also adding fun elements in the mix which do not have historical comparisons.

Also the point is not apocalypse but the suffering of billions most of whom have not really contributed much to our current predicament.

Driving to work last week, I got caught up in a horrific traffic jam. Took 2 hours for what is normally a 40 minute commute. There was a multi-car collision with multiple fatalities. One man's inconvenience is another man's apocalypse.

[The Walrus]

Kasey,
Yes, the destruction of the Amazon and other areas have a much more dire and immediate impact than a few tenth of temperature rise.  Most species can adapt to slow changes.  Large changes are much more difficult to adapt to, and can greatly stress life.

[Bernard]

One man's inconvenience is another man's apocalypse.

Indeed. No living thing experiences the death of its species, only its individual death. Either billions of your kind remain after you or you are the last one, you die alone so it's no big deal. And that's maybe the reason why most people will never feel an emergency in saving their species or the planet. If my personal death means the apocalypse, why care for the rest?

[be cause]

another 100 billion trees gone .. if we don't accelerate the destruction . That's over 1 million trees lost every hour for the next 10 years . At the current rate we will have no trees on the planet by 2320 .. too far away for anyone to worry .. b.c.

[The Walrus]

another 100 billion trees gone .. if we don't accelerate the destruction . That's over 1 million trees lost every hour for the next 10 years . At the current rate we will have no trees on the planet by 2320 .. too far away for anyone to worry .. b.c.

The tree cutting is not equal.  The losses are mainly in the tropics.  The mid-latitudes are experiencing forest growth.  However, that was not realized until after much acreage was felled.  Hard to say when the third world with reverse course.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.

[VideoGameVet]

Here's one of the worst possibilities for the coming decade:

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/climate-risk-and-response-physical-hazards-and-socioeconomic-impacts

McKinsley: For example, as heat and humidity increase in India, by 2030 under an RCP 8.5 scenario, between 160 million and 200 million people could live in regions with a 5 percent average annual probability of experiencing a heat wave that exceeds the survivability threshold for a healthy human being, absent an adaptation response. (The technical threshold we employed is a three-day heatwave with wet-bulb temperatures of 34 degrees Celsius. At that point, the urban heat island effect could increase the wet-bulb temperature to 35 degrees Celsius. All our lethal heatwave projections are subject to uncertainty related to the future behavior of atmospheric aerosols and urban heat island or cooling island effects).

[El Cid]

Yes, climate change is most dangerous for those places that are already very hot. That is obvious

[gerontocrat]

A new study suggesting disasters will become very much more frequent as CO2 levels rise. I suspect the methodology will come in for criticism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/climate-crisis-study-flood-storm-study
Frequency of intense floods and storms could double in 13 years, says study

Intense floods and storms around the world could double in frequency within 13 years, as climate breakdown and socioeconomic factors combine, according to a new study.

The authors of the analysis say it’s the first to incorporate historical local and global climate data and information about population density, income and poverty to estimate how many hard-hitting disasters to expect. They counted floods and storms that would affect 1,000 people or kill 100 people.

Broadly, the researchers also see governments around the world as critically unprepared. The authors found very high risks for countries such as Australia, Bangladesh and China. Risks are highest for countries that are already seeing far more extreme events than the global average.

Thomas said the findings of an “unmistakable causal link between carbon emissions and more intense floods and storms come at a crucial time,” as forest fires burn through Australia and floods and powerful storms hit the US and Europe.

The study examined how disasters have increased as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere over 60 years. It then projected that same trend into the future and considered how much a continued increase in floods and storms would affect regions based on how populous they are and whether residents are financially secure and prepared for disasters.

The research used an economic approach, rather than relying on climate modeling – which uses computers to calculate likely outcomes based on a range of inputs. The journal publishing the study is based in Manila and not widely known. The authors said they first attempted to publish their work in the well-read journal Science.

Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmosphere sciences at the University of Illinois who worked on the 2018 US National Climate Assessment, said the study might be underestimating future disasters by assuming disasters will continue to increase at the current rate. He said he appreciated that the researchers considered population growth and density but that he was “not sure they adequately considered the changes in climate for the future”.

Ramón López, the lead author of the study who is a professor at the University of Chile, acknowledged the methods used might not account for the likelihood that severe events will increase at a faster rate than we have seen in the past.

You can download the study as a pdf from https://www.cddjournal.org/article/view/vol04-iss1-3

Here is a quote from the study....

Our results show that if CO2  level increases by 1%, then the hydrometeorological disasters would increase by 8.96 % (see Appendix B6). Using this elasticity, we then project the number of intense disasters in the future. For instance, the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2  has
been about 2.4 ppm, or about 0.6% of the base 396.54 ppm level, from 2010 to 2016. We choose this period to reflect the more recent and higher trend in the CO2  level as compared to that between 1970 and 2016, in which the average CO2  increase is around 1.70 ppm.

Accordingly, the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters could increase by 5.4% annually for the “average” country or by 0.05 more disasters. This is with respect to the 2010–2016 average, which is 0.856 disasters per year. This implies that under the current trend in the
increase in atmospheric CO2  accumulation, the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters could double in 13 years or from an average of 0.856 to 1.71 disasters annually.

These estimated effects of CO2  accumulation on disasters are not much larger than those obtained from climate change models. Likewise, climate change models predict that the increase in accumulated CO2 stock would have massive effects on the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters. Climate model estimates predict that if CO2  concentrations double, then the frequency of Category 5 hurricanes may triple (Anderson & Bausch, 2006).

Moreover, the models estimate that an increase of 1 °C in global temperature would increase the number of Category 3 (e.g., hurricane Katrina) events by seven times (Grinsted et al., 2013).
If GHG concentrations will continue to rise throughout the 21st century, then climate change—even under mitigation scenarios—will still continue to affect humanity, particularly those in the tropical coastal areas
(Mora et al., 2018).

[gerontocrat]

We miss a sense of urgency and i fear the worst for what we have left to safe in 2030...

(No kids myself but my best friends kids will be teenagers by then i sort of dread the story i will have to tell them).

"....by then I sort of dread the story I will have to tell them"

In one way it seems 2030 has already arrived.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/10/overwhelming-and-terrifying-impact-of-climate-crisis-on-mental-health
‘Overwhelming and terrifying’: the rise of climate anxiety
Experts concerned young people’s mental health particularly hit by reality of the climate crisis

Over the past few weeks Clover Hogan has found herself crying during the day and waking up at night gripped by panic. The 20-year-old, who now lives in London, grew up in Queensland, Australia, cheek by jowl with the country’s wildlife, fishing frogs out of the toilet and dodging snakes hanging from the ceiling.

The bushfires ravaging her homeland over the past few weeks have taken their toll. “I’ve found myself bursting into tears … just seeing the absolutely harrowing images of what’s happening in Australia – it is overwhelming and terrifying.” Hogan said her lowest point came when she heard about the death of half a billion animals incinerated as the fires swept through the bush. “That was the moment where I felt my heart cleave into two pieces. I felt absolutely distraught.”

The physical impact of the climate crisis is impossible to ignore, but experts are becoming increasingly concerned about another, less obvious consequence of the escalating emergency – the strain it is putting on people’s mental wellbeing, especially the young.

Psychologists warn that the impact can be debilitating for the growing number of people overwhelmed by the scientific reality of ecological breakdown and for those who have lived through traumatic climate events, often on the climate frontline in the global south..

Until two years ago Dr Patrick Kennedy-Williams, a clinical psychologist from Oxford, had spent his career treating common mental health difficulties including anxiety, depression and trauma. Then something new started to happen. Climate scientists and researchers working in Oxford began to approach him asking for help.

“These were people who were essentially facing a barrage of negative information and downward trends in their work … and the more they engaged with the issue, the more they realised what needed to be done – and the more they felt that was bigger than their capacity to enact meaningful change,” he said. “The consequences of this can be pretty dire – anxiety, burnout and a sort of professional paralysis.”

Kennedy-Williams began to research the topic and realised it was not just scientists and researchers who were suffering. “There is a huge need among parents, for instance, who are asking for support on how to talk to their kids about this.”

When Kennedy-Williams began focusing on young people he assumed most would be older teenagers or at least have started secondary school. But he soon discovered worrying levels of environment-related stress and anxiety in much younger children.

“What I was most surprised by is how young the awareness and anxiety starts. My own daughter was just six when she came to me and said: ‘Daddy, are we winning the war against climate change?’ and I was just flummoxed by that question in the moment. It really showed me the importance as a parent of being prepared for the conversation, so we can respond in a helpful way.”

He says there is no way to completely shield young people from the reality of the climate crisis, and argues that would be counterproductive even if it were possible. Rather, parents should talk to their children about their concerns and help them feel empowered to take action – however small – that can make a difference.

A key moment for Kennedy-Williams came with the realisation that tackling “climate anxiety” and tackling the climate crisis were intrinsically linked.

“The positive thing from our perspective as psychologists is that we soon realised the cure to climate anxiety is the same as the cure for climate change – action. It is about getting out and doing something that helps.

“Record and celebrate the changes you make. Nobody is too small. Make connections with other people and at the same time realise that you are not going to cure this problem on your own. This isn’t all on you and it’s not sustainable to be working on solving climate change 24/7.”

This certainly resonates with Hogan, who has set up Force of Nature, an initiative aimed at helping young people realise their potential to create change. Hogan’s group aims to target people aged 11-24 with a crash course in the climate crisis that helps them navigate their anxiety and realise their potential to get involved, take action and make a stand.

“This is only the beginning,” said Hogan. “We’re going to see massive, massive widespread climate crisis in every country around the world, so it’s about developing the emotional resilience to carry on, but in a way that ignites really dramatic individual initiative.”

Beyond climate anxiety – the fear that the current system is pushing the Earth beyond its ecological limits – experts are also warning of a sharp rise in trauma caused by the experience of climate-related disasters.

In the global south, increasingly intense storms, wildfires, droughts and heatwaves have left their mark not just physically but also on the mental wellbeing of millions of people.

For Elizabeth Wathuti, a climate activist from Kenya, her experience of climate anxiety is not so much about the future but what is happening now. “People in African countries experience eco-anxiety differently because climate change for us is about the impacts that we are already experiencing now and the possibilities of the situation getting worse,” she said.

Elizabeth Wathuti, a climate activist from Kenya, says a common worry she hears among students is, ‘We won’t die of old age, we’ll die from climate change’. She works with young people through the Green Generation Initiative she founded and sees the effects of eco-anxiety first-hand. A common worry she hears among students is: “We won’t die of old age, we’ll die from climate change.”

Extreme climate events can create poverty, which exacerbates mental health problems, and Wathuti says she has seen stress, depression and alcohol and drug abuse as some of the side-effects of climate anxiety and trauma in her country.

Even in the UK, a recent study by the Environment Agency found that people who experience extreme weather such as storms or flooding are 50% more likely to suffer from mental health problems, including stress and depression, for years afterwards.

More than 1,000 clinical psychologists have signed an open letter highlighting the impact of the crisis on people’s wellbeing and predicting “acute trauma on a global scale in response to extreme weather events, forced migration and conflict”.

Kaaren Knight, a clinical psychologist who coordinated the letter, said: “The physical impacts related to extreme weather, food shortages and conflict are intertwined with the additional burden of mental health impacts and it is these psychologists are particularly concerned about.”

She added that fear and trauma “significantly reduced psychological wellbeing”, particularly in children. “This is of huge concern to us and needs to be part of the conversation when we talk about climate breakdown.”

One of the high-profile signatories of the letter, Prof Mike Wang, the chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, said: “Inaction and complacency are the privileges of yesterday … Psychologists are ready and willing to help countries protect the health and wellbeing of their citizens given the inevitable social and psychological consequences of climate change.”

This rallying of the psychological profession around the climate crisis has led to experts around the world forming groups to research and treat the growing number of people caught up in the unfolding crisis, attempting to help them move from fear and paralysis towards action.

But even for those who are following this advice, the scale of the emergency is taking its toll. Kennedy Williams – who has set up his own group, Climate Psychologists, specialising in climate anxiety – said he and his colleagues were not immune from the psychological impacts of the crisis. “This is such a universal thing that [we] have all been through our own set of climate-related grief and despair, and we talk about riding the wave between hope and despair … it is absolutely as real for us as it is for anyone else.”

[gerontocrat]

From Carbon Brief

Coal use has to drop like a stone as it is the #1 polluter

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-coal-use-must-plummet-this-decade-to-keep-global-warming-below-1-5c

Of the 3 graphs attached of fossil fuel emissions to 2030, which do you think is most likely to happen?
1- IEA projection,
2 - required for 2  degrees.
3 - required for 1.5 degrees,


I reckon somewhere twixt 1 & 2.

[Tom_Mazanec]

10 Predictions for the Solar and Storage Market in the 2020s
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10-predictions-for-solar-and-storage-in-2020s

All-in-one systems will be the new normal
1. Lots of storage
2. System costs will increase with the shift toward batteries
3. More battery and inverter packages from the same brand
4. Energy storage systems treated like heat pumps and air conditioners
Standards will evolve
5. Reputation will matter — a lot
6. New safety standards and code requirements catch up to technology
All things will remain technical
7. Real automation and optimization software will outpace flashy interfaces
8. Still waiting for vehicle-to-grid
9. AC and DC coupling will both be around for the foreseeable future
10. Battery pack voltage will increase dramatically

[gerontocrat]

Which large ecosystem will be the first to collapse ?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15029-x.pdf
Regime shifts occur disproportionately faster
in larger ecosystems

Gregory S. Cooper 1,4, Simon Willcock 2,4 & John A. Dearing3✉
Regime shifts can abruptly affect hydrological, climatic and terrestrial systems, leading to
degraded ecosystems and impoverished societies. While the frequency of regime shifts is
predicted to increase, the fundamental relationships between the spatial-temporal scales of
shifts and their underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we analyse empirical
data from terrestrial (n = 4), marine (n = 25) and freshwater (n = 13) environments and
show positive sub-linear empirical relationships between the size and shift duration of systems. Each additional unit area of an ecosystem provides an increasingly smaller unit of time
taken for that system to collapse, meaning that large systems tend to shift more slowly than
small systems but disproportionately faster. We substantiate these findings with five computational models that reveal the importance of system structure in controlling shift duration.
The findings imply that shifts in Earth ecosystems occur over ‘human’ timescales of years and
decades, meaning the collapse of large vulnerable ecosystems, such as the Amazon rainforest
and Caribbean coral reefs, may take only a few decades once triggered.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/10/ecosystems-size-of-amazon-rainforest-can-collapse-within-decades
Ecosystems the size of Amazon 'can collapse within decades'
Large biomes can break down like Jenga bricks once tipping point reached, research finds

....a study that shows bigger biomes break up relatively faster than small ones.
......the results should warn policymakers they had less time than they realised to deal with the multiple climate and biodiversity crises facing the world.

.....To examine the relationship between an ecosystem’s size and the speed of its collapse, the authors looked at 42 previous cases of “regime shift”. This is the term used to describe a change from one state to another – for example, the collapse of fisheries in Newfoundland, the death of vegetation in the Sahel, desertification of agricultural lands in Niger, bleaching of coral reefs in Jamaica, and the eutrophication of Lake Erhai in China.

They found that bigger and more complex biomes were initially more resilient than small, biologically simpler systems. However, once the former hit a tipping point, they collapse relatively faster because failures repeat throughout their modular structure. As a result, the bigger the ecosystem, the harder it is likely to fall.

[Rodius]

I suppose this thread should start again given the viral spanner that has been thrown into the works 

[El Cid]

I don't think the virus will change the path ahead very much

[blumenkraft]

There is a slight chance the FF industry takes a hit.

But otherwise, i agree, El Cid. When this is over, business as usual will likely continue.

[El Cid]

2020 will likely see less Co2 emissions but other than that I see not much change from 2021 on. However I believe that as wind and partly solar is becoming ever more competitive, there is going to be a big fall in coal production in the 20s as that will become obsolete. Oil and gas will stay strong though. Oil for transports and gas will be needed for turbines that can be switched on and off quickly. Coal is dead.

EDIT: recessions show reduced emissions as energy use falls. So like 2009 I expect 2020 to see lower emissions, see data here:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-year/

[ArcticMelt2]

I saw this design a couple years ago. I bounced it off a couple aerospace profs i know, they were skeptical. Should follow up, i suppose.

sidd

But over the past two years, technology has not stood. In the United States, General Electric has recently mastered the production of a 12 megawatt turbine with 107 meter blades. The loading factor of this turbine is about 63%. It is likely that by 2030 50 megawatt turbines with 200-meter blades and almost 100% load factor will appear.

This means a complete solution to the problem of energy storage.

Windmills continue to increase power

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/reference-turbine-gives-offshore-wind-updraft.html

New Reference Turbine Gives Offshore Wind an Upward Draft

Only one commercial offshore wind farm currently exists in the United States—the Block Island Wind Farm in Block Island, Rhode Island. But market predictions show rapid growth for this industry over the next 10 years in states like New York, Massachusetts, Maine, and Oregon. As the offshore wind industry grows and evolves, engineers and designers need tools that can help develop better-performing, more cost-competitive wind turbines.

Reference wind turbines (RWTs)—open-access designs of a complete wind turbine system, with supporting models for simulation and design—make it possible to evaluate the performance and cost of proposed modifications before prototype development. NREL recently released the International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme 15-megawatt reference turbine, or IEA Wind 15-MW for short, which features options for both fixed-bottom turbines and those with floating substructures. This open-source model, now available on GitHub, can accommodate multiple software tools and will provide industry, researchers, and academics a public-domain tool for designing next-generation offshore wind turbines.

What's the most exciting thing about this reference turbine?

Offshore wind turbines have eclipsed the current slate of reference turbines in terms of size and utility. The IEA Wind 15-MW’s configurations go beyond the capabilities of the 10- to 12-MW turbines already in development by industry, but are similar enough to serve as a baseline for 15- to 20-MW next-generation designs, which means the IEA Wind 15-MW will serve as a valuable development resource for the foreseeable future.

The IEA 15-MW is rated for a 15-megawatt turbine with a height of 150 meters and a rotor diameter of 240 meters. Graphic by Joshua Bauer, NREL



The IEA 15-MW features options for both fixed-bottom turbines and those with floating substructures. Graphic by Joshua Bauer, NREL


https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/products-and-services/offshore/wind-turbine-sg-14-222-dd

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/newsroom/2020/05/200519-siemens-gamesa-turbine-14-222-dd

Powered by change: Siemens Gamesa launches 14 MW offshore Direct Drive turbine with 222-meter rotor

SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbine released with nameplate capacity of 14 MW; can reach 15 MW with Power Boost
222-meter rotor diameter uses massive 108-meter long B108 blades
Lifetime avoidance of approx. 1.4 million tons of CO2 emissions per machine compared to coal-fired power generation
+25% Annual Energy Production increase vs. predecessor machine
Light 500-ton nacelle weight enables optimized substructure at lower cost
Prototype ready in 2021; commercially available in 2024

The winds of change have never been stronger, especially when it comes to meeting the world’s needs for clean, renewable energy. Siemens Gamesa’s new SG 14-222 DD offshore Direct Drive wind turbine now sees the light of day as a part of the solution.

With an unprecedented 14-megawatt (MW) capacity - reaching up to 15 MW using the company’s Power Boost function, a 222-meter diameter rotor, 108-meter long blades, and an astounding 39,000 m2 swept area, the newest Siemens Gamesa wind turbine stands tall in a world currently undergoing enormous upheaval.

“We’ve gone bigger for the better,” states Markus Tacke, CEO of Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, who continues: “Safely and sustainably providing clean energy for our customers and society-at-large is at the core of all we do. The new SG 14-222 DD is a global product which allows all of us take giant steps towards protecting and preserving our planet. We ourselves became carbon neutral in late 2019 and are on track towards meeting our long-term ambition of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Our installed fleet of over 100 GW both offshore and onshore abates more than 260 million tons of CO2 emissions annually.”

“Offshore is in our DNA,” states Andreas Nauen, CEO of the Siemens Gamesa Offshore Business Unit. “Since we helped create the offshore wind industry in 1991, we’ve been determined to safely increase operational performance, minimize technology risks, and create a consistently lower Levelized Cost of Energy. The SG 14-222 DD demonstrates our drive to lead the way in a world powered by clean energy. In fact, just one unit will avoid approx. 1.4 million tons of CO2 emissions compared to coal-fired power generation over the course of its projected 25-year lifetime,” he adds.

The 14 MW capacity allows one SG 14-222 DD machine able to provide enough energy to power approximately 18,000 average European households every year. Approximately 30 SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbines could furthermore cover the annual electricity consumption of Bilbao, Spain.

The 222-meter diameter rotor uses the new Siemens Gamesa B108 blades. As long as almost three Space Shuttles placed end-to-end, each 108-meter long IntegralBlade® is cast in one piece using patented Siemens Gamesa blade technologies. Additionally, the turbine’s massive 39,000 m2 swept area is equivalent to approximately 5.5 standard football pitches. It allows the SG 14-222 DD to provide an increase of more than 25% in Annual Energy Production compared to the SG 11.0-200 DD offshore wind turbine.

Furthermore, the new offshore giant features a low nacelle weight at 500 metric tons. This light weight enables Siemens Gamesa to safely utilize an optimized tower and foundation substructure compared to a heavier nacelle. Benefits thus arise in the form of lower costs per turbine by minimizing sourced materials and reducing transportation needs.

Extending on the proven offshore direct drive track record, the SG 14-222 DD is based on Siemens Gamesa’s deep understanding and expertise gained over five product generations since the platform was launched in 2011. Key components such as safety systems, hub and tower concepts, operations and maintenance solutions, along with a strong, qualified supply chain form the basis of the new offshore wind turbine.



Over 1,000 Siemens Gamesa Direct Drive offshore wind turbines have been installed in all major offshore wind markets globally. They include the UK, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Taiwan, among others. Furthermore, confirmed orders for an additional 1,000 Offshore Direct Drive turbines have been received, with installations planned for the markets mentioned above and new offshore markets including the USA and France.

[oren]

Windmills continue to increase power

Wind turbines, not windmills.

[The Walrus]

There is a slight chance the FF industry takes a hit.

But otherwise, i agree, El Cid. When this is over, business as usual will likely continue.

There will likely be some virus-related changes, but other than that, everything will return to normal.

[kassy]

We will see. The dutch railway projected quite a big revenue drop. One part is the current measures which restrict travel but they also expect a long term influence from more people working from home. Many businesses finally got to implement that now and if that works it is also a great bonus for the workers.

For 2030 it is more relevant how much of the current accidental reduction we reproduce year after year on purpose until then.