Climate Change Threat Increasing

Warming and CO2 emissions are increasing, immediate action needed to avoid
tipping points

UN Environmental Program, 9-21, 22, https://sdg.iisd.org/news/multi-agency-climate-science-

report-warns-about-tipping-points/, Multi-agency Climate Science Report Warns About “Tipping
Points”

A group of global partner organizations , coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), under the
direction of the UN Secretary-General, issued a report compiling the most recent science related to
climate change impacts and responses. The publication highlights “the huge gap between aspirations and reality,”
and calls for “much more ambitious action” to thwart the increasingly devastating physical and socioeconomic impacts of global
warming. Titled, ‘United in Science,’ the report features contributions by WMO, the Global Carbon Project (GCP), the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Met Office (UK), the Urban Climate Change Research Network (UCCRN), the UN Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the World Climate Research
Programme (WCRP), which is jointly sponsored by WMO, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the UN Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (IOC-UNESCO), and the International Science Council (ISC). The report warns that “urgent action
is needed to mitigate emissions and adapt to our changing climate.” It also notes that climate-related
disasters “set
back progress towards achieving the [SDGs] and exacerbate existing poverty and inequality.”
The report provides unified scientific information on some of the current and projected climate change impacts to inform decision
makers. The chapters of the report, each drafted by a contributing organization or organizations, address greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations, global GHG emissions and budgets, the state of the global climate in 2018-2022, global climate predictions for 2022-
2026, the emissions gap, tipping points in the climate system, climate change in cities, extreme weather events and socioeconomic
impacts, and supporting adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) through early warning systems. The report highlights five key
messages: Atmospheric GHG concentrations continue to rise. Fossil fuel emissions have now exceeded pre-
pandemic levels after a temporary drop due to COVID-19-related lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. In recent years, global
temperatures and ocean heat have reached record highs. Looking ahead, “there is a 48% chance
that, during at least one year in the next five years, annual mean temperature will temporarily
be 1.5°C higher than in 1850-1900.” Mitigation pledges are insufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement on climate
change. More ambitious action is needed to prevent the continued warmi ng that is increasing the
likelihood of “tipping points,” or irreversible changes in the climate system. Climate change impacts affect billions of
people around the world. Cities are responsible for as much as 70% of human-caused emissions. Urban populations will
face increasing socioeconomic impacts, and the world’s most vulnerable will suffer most. Adaptation is essential to reduce the risks
of climate impacts. Early warning systems can save lives, reduce losses and damages, contribute to DRR, and support climate change
adaptation.

Climate change caused by humans

Eliza Keefe, 8-2, 22, ‘Unequivocal’ Evidence that Humans Cause Climate Change, Contrary to
Posts of Old Video, https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/unequivocal-evidence-that-humans-
cause-climate-change-contrary-to-posts-of-old-video/

There
is “unequivocal” evidence that humans are causing global warming, the U.N. climate
change panel has said. But viral posts revive a 2014 video of Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman falsely claiming
“climate change is not happening.” The channel, which supports the scientific consensus that climate change is real, had distanced
itself from Coleman. A
vast and growing body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is
occurring and is largely caused by human activity, as we’ve written on multiple occasions In 2007, the United
Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the “evidence is now ‘unequivocal’ that humans are causing
global warming,” the U.N. said in a press release at the time. The U.N. panel has repeated that finding ever since, most recently in an
April report. “Widespread and rapid changes” have occurred as a result of climate change and “many changes … are irreversible” for
at least centuries, the U.N. climate panel said in another report issued in 2021. “Many changes in the climate system become larger
in direct relation to increasing global warming,” the 2021 report said. “They include increases in the frequency and intensity of hot
extremes, marine heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and, in some regions, agricultural and ecological droughts; an increase in the
proportion of intense tropical cyclones; and reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost.” As the effects of climate
change become increasingly evident, the issue is also becoming increasingly political. Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
in June to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, President Joe Biden said he would
take “strong executive action” to “tackle the climate crisis” if the Senate failed to act. But social media posts continue to
question the existence of global warming by reviving a 2014 interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with climate
change skeptic and Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman. One Instagram post has the headline, “Weather Channel Founder
Goes Savage on CNN for Network’s Climate Change Fake News.” A caption on the video clip says, “The climate change activist and
movement is a fraud!” The post has been viewed more than 18,000 times. A post
on Twitter attached a slightly
longer portion of the same Coleman interview with the caption, “Founder of The Weather Channel tells Brian
Stelter climate change is a hoax.” The post has over 66,000 likes and more than 28,000 retweets. In the video shared in these posts,
Coleman said: “Climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the
past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future.” Coleman’s
claims are false, and so is the implication in
the social media posts that he was an expert in climate science. Coleman, who died in 2018, worked as a
weather anchor for over 60 years, including on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” But he did not hold a degree in any scientific
discipline. The CNN clip was one of many instances in which Coleman perpetuated climate change falsehoods. In the CNN report,
anchor Brian Stelter subsequently spoke with the Weather Channel’s then-CEO David Kenny. In that exchange, which the social
media posts leave out, Kenny distanced the Weather Channel from Coleman’s claims and asked viewers to focus on the science.
“What I want people to know is that the science is pretty clear about climate change,” Kenny said. “We’re grateful that [Coleman]
got [the Weather Channel] started 32 years ago, but he hasn’t been with us in 31 years. So he’s not really speaking for the Weather
Channel in any way today.” Kenny continued, “Our position is really clear, it’s scientifically based, and we’ve been unwavering on it
for quite some time now.” The Weather Channel had posted its statement on climate change a few days prior to Kenny’s CNN
interview. In its statement, which was updated in 2017, the organization accurately said that “the majority of the warming over the
past century is a result of human activities.” Extensive scientific evidence gathered over many years
corroborates the Weather Channel’s conclusion that, contrary to Coleman’s claims, human-
caused warming exists. As we’ve written, the theory of the greenhouse effect — that greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere — has been repeatedly proven since it was first proposed in 1824. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science notes that about 97% of climate scientists believe
human-caused warming is occurring. Similarly, NASA calls the fact that “Earth’s climate is
warming” a matter of “scientific consensus.” The Annual 2021 Global Climate Report,
prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for
Environmental Information, found that the global annual temperature increased an average
rate of 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1880 but “over twice that rate” since 1981.
“The years 2013–2021 all rank among the ten warmest years on record. The year 2021 was also the 45th consecutive year (since
1977) with global temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average,” the report added. The
year 2021
marked the sixth warmest year recorded, despite the cooling effect of La Niña climate pattern in the central and
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA charted the global average surface
temperature since 1880. (See chart.) “That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover
and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals,” NOAA explains on climate.gov. The NCEI
annual report concludes that only the “human emissions of heat-trapping gases” can explain this increase in global temperature. The
IPCC, a U.N. body of 278 climate experts from 65 countries, in a report released in April attributed climate change to “more than a
century of … unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyle and patterns of consumption and production.” The
panel warned that “without urgent, effective and equitable mitigation actions,” climate change will continue to threaten
biodiversity, global health and economic growth. “[C]limate change poses a serious threat to development and wellbeing in both rich
and poor countries,” the report said, citing such climate impacts as premature deaths, food insecurity and loss of land and
infrastructure.
Earth warming, humans responsible

Poast, 7-29, 22, World Politics Review, Climate Diplomacy Might Be a Dead End,
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/global-diplomacy-cant-tackle-mitigation-climate-
change/?utm_source=Active+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2b470a4505-081922-insight-
subs&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_35c49cbd51-2b470a4505-
64365485&mc_cid=2b470a4505&mc_eid=c25e092f7c

Scorching heat throughout Europe and North America in the past few weeks has once again
raised concerns over an impending climate crisis. Record-high temperatures are now a regular
occurrence. For example, the 10 hottest years on record in the United Kingdom have occurred
since 2002. The implications for the future are foreboding, from increased droughts and
wildfires to global food insecurity. As made clear by the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in March, scientists widely agree that the
extreme temperatures are caused by human activity, namely the production of greenhouse
gases, primarily carbon dioxide, by various industrial processes. These gases, in turn, trap heat
on the earth’s surface. The record of global average temperatures over the past 2,000 years,
gathered in part based on ice cores that can trap and store indicators of global temperatures,
shows that, after ebbing and flowing within a general range for most of that time,
temperatures markedly increased starting around 1800 with the onset of the industrial
revolution. Climate science, gathered in the succession of IPCC reports over the past decade,
has progressively determined that, in this case, correlation does equal causation.
Warming Impact
 Extinction Impacts

Human extinction

Ben Taub, 8-2, 22, Climate Change Could Eliminate Humanity And We’re Totally Unprepared,
Scientists Argue, https://www.iflscience.com/climate-change-could-eliminate-humanity-and-
were-totally-unprepared-scientists-argue-64712

The possibility that climate change could wipe us out has not been given enough attention and requires urgent
consideration if we are to avoid a worst-case scenario, according to a new report. As a first step towards salvation, the authors urge
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to stop looking on the bright side and conduct a “special report on
catastrophic climate change.” “Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human
extinction?” ask researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “At present, this is a dangerously
underexplored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe.” Decapitated
Egyptian Mummy Head Found In Attic Investigated By Scientists Building on this worrying sentiment, study author Dr Luke Kemp
explained in a statement that “climate change has played a role in every mass extinction event. It has
helped fell empires and shaped history. Even the modern world seems adapted to a particular climate niche.” In spite of these
terrifying precedents, though, the researchers point out that “the IPCC has yet to give focused attention to catastrophic climate
change. Fourteen special reports have been published. None covered extreme or catastrophic climate change.” This tendency to
ignore our impending downfall, they say, may reflect “the culture of climate science to 'err on the side of least drama,' to not to be
alarmists.” As a consequence, the fall-out from a global temperature rise exceeding 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial levels remains
largely underexamined, despite the fact that many climate change models predict such an increase. Bucking this trend, the
researchers call for a "climate endgame" research agenda to examine what they call the “four horsemen” of climate change. These
are listed as famine and undernutrition, extreme weather events, conflict, and vector-borne diseases. For instance, they explain that
when a rise of more than 2°C (3.6°F) is considered, then the chances of significant decreases in
maize production worldwide jump from 7 percent to 86 percent. The resulting “breadbasket
failures” are likely to be exacerbated by what the authors call “warm wars”, as technologically
enhanced superpowers squabble over dwindling carbon budgets and other climate impacts.
“Paths to disaster are not limited to the direct impacts of high temperatures, such as extreme weather events,” says Kemp.
“Knock-on effects such as financial crises, conflict, and new disease outbreaks could trigger
other calamities, and impede recovery from potential disasters such as nuclear war .” To illustrate
this point, the researchers reveal that current models suggest that within half a century, around 2 billion people
could live in areas affected by “extreme temperatures”. “By 2070, these temperatures and the social and
political consequences will directly affect two nuclear powers, and seven maximum containment laboratories housing the most
dangerous pathogens,” explained study author Chi Xu. “There is serious potential for disastrous knock-on effects.” Summing up, the
researchers state that “further research funding of catastrophic and worst-case climate change is critical,” and that “facing a future
of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naïve risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst.” “A
special report on catastrophic climate change could help trigger further research,” they say, adding that such a project could “help
bring into focus how much is at stake in a worst-case scenario.”

Climate change is a non-linear, existential risk.

Kemp et al. 22, *Luke Kemp, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge;
*Chi Xu, School of Life Sciences, Nanjing University; *Joanna Depledge, Cambridge Centre for
Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge; *Timothy
Lenton, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter; (August 1 st, 2022, “Climate Endgame:
Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios”,
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119#sec-3)
Worst-Case Climate Change
Despite 30 y of efforts and some progress under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to increase. Even without considering worst-case
climate responses, the current trajectory puts the world on track for a temperature rise between 2.1 °C
and 3.9 °C by 2100 (11). If all 2030 nationally determined contributions are fully implemented, warming of 2.4 °C (1.9 °C to
3.0 °C) is expected by 2100. Meeting all long-term pledges and targets could reduce this to 2.1 °C (1.7 °C to 2.6 °C) (12). Even these
optimistic assumptions lead to dangerous Earth system trajectories. Temperatures of more than 2 
°C above preindustrial values have not been sustained on Earth’s surface since before the Pleistocene
Epoch (or more than 2.6 million years ago) (13).
Even if anthropogenic GHG emissions start to decline soon, this does not rule out high future GHG concentrations or extreme
climate change, particularly beyond 2100. There are feedbacks in the carbon cycle and potential tipping
points that could generate high GHG concentrations (14) that are often missing from models. Examples
include Arctic permafrost thawing that releases methane and CO2 (15), carbon loss due to intense
droughts and fires in the Amazon (16), and the apparent slowing of dampening feedbacks such as natural
carbon sink capacity (17, 18). These are likely to not be proportional to warming, as is sometimes assumed. Instead, abrupt
and/or irreversible changes may be triggered at a temperature threshold. Such changes are evident in
Earth’s geological record, and their impacts cascaded across the coupled climate–ecological–social system (19). Particularly worrying
is a “tipping cascade” in which multiple tipping
elements interact in such a way that tipping one threshold
increases the likelihood of tipping another (20). Temperature rise is crucially dependent on the overall dynamics of
the Earth system, not just the anthropogenic emissions trajectory.

The potential for tipping points and higher concentrations despite lower anthropogenic emissions is evident in existing models.
Variability among the latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate models results in overlap in different
scenarios. For example, the top (75th) quartile outcome of the “middle-of-the-road” scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3-7.0,
or SSP3-7.0) is substantially hotter than the bottom (25th) quartile of the highest emissions (SSP5-8.5) scenario. Regional
temperature differences between models can exceed 5 °C to 6 °C, particularly in polar areas where various tipping points can occur
(SI Appendix).

There are even more uncertain

feedbacks, which, in a very worst case, might amplify to an irreversible
transition into a “Hothouse Earth” state (21) (although there may be negative feedbacks that help buffer the Earth
system). In particular, poorly understood cloud feedbacks might trigger sudden and irreversible global warming (22). Such effects
remain underexplored and largely speculative “unknown unknowns” that are still being discovered. For instance, recent simulations
suggest that stratocumulus cloud decks might abruptly be lost at CO2 concentrations that could be approached by the end of the
century, causing an additional ∼8 °C global warming (23). Large uncertainties about dangerous surprises are reasons to prioritize
rather than neglect them.
Recent findings on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) (14, 24) underline that the magnitude of climate change is uncertain even if we knew future GHG concentrations. According to the IPCC, our best estimate
for ECS is a 3 °C temperature rise per doubling of CO2, with a “likely” range of (66 to 100% likelihood) of 2.5 °C to 4 °C. While an ECS below 1.5 °C was essentially ruled out, there remains an 18% probability that
ECS could be greater than 4.5 °C (14). The distribution of ECS is “heavy tailed,” with a higher probability of very high values of ECS than of very low values.

There is significant uncertainty over future anthropogenic GHG emissions as well. Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5, now SSP5-8.5), the highest emissions pathway used in IPCC scenarios, most
closely matches cumulative emissions to date (25). This may not be the case going forward, because of falling prices of renewable energy and policy responses (26). Yet, there remain reasons for caution. For
instance, there is significant uncertainty over key variables such as energy demand and economic growth. Plausibly higher economic growth rates could make RCP8.5 35% more likely (27).

Why Explore Climate Catastrophe?

Why do we need to know about the plausible worst cases? First, risk management and robust decision-making under uncertainty requires knowledge of extremes. For example, the minimax criterion ranks policies
by their worst outcomes (28). Such an approach is particularly appropriate for areas characterized by high uncertainties and tail risks. Emissions trajectories, future concentrations, future warming, and future
impacts are all characterized by uncertainty. That is, we can’t objectively prescribe probabilities to different outcomes (29). Climate damages lie within the realm of “deep uncertainty”: We don’t know the
probabilities attached to different outcomes, the exact chain of cause and effect that will lead to outcomes, or even the range, timing, or desirability of outcomes (, 30). Uncertainty, deep or not, should motivate
precaution and vigilance, not complacency.

Catastrophic impacts, even if unlikely, have major implications for economic analysis, modeling, and society’s responses (31, 32). For example, extreme warming and the consequent damages can significantly
increase the projected social cost of carbon (31). Understanding the vulnerability and responses of human societies can inform policy making and decision-making to prevent systemic crises. Indicators of key
variables can provide early warning signals (33).

Knowing the worst cases can compel action, as the idea of “nuclear winter” in 1983 galvanized public concern and nuclear disarmament efforts. Exploring severe risks and higher-temperature scenarios could
cement a recommitment to the 1.5 °C to 2 °C guardrail as the “least unattractive” option (34).

Understanding catastrophic climate scenarios can also inform policy interventions, including last-resort emergency measures like solar radiation management (SRM), the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere
to reflect sunlight (35). Whether to resort to such measures depends on the risk profiles of both climate change and SRM scenarios. One recent analysis of the potential catastrophic risk of stratospheric aerosol
injection (SAI) found that the direct and systemic impacts are under-studied (36). The largest danger appears to come from “termination shock”: abrupt and rapid warming if the SAI system is disrupted. Hence, SAI
shifts the risk distribution: The median outcome may be better than the climate change it is offsetting, but the tail risk could be worse than warming (36).

There are other interventions that a better understanding of catastrophic climate change could facilitate. For example, at the international level, there is the potential for a “tail risk treaty”: an agreement or
protocol that activates stronger commitments and mechanisms when early-warning indicators of potential abrupt change are triggered.
The Potential for Climate Catastrophe

There are four key reasons to be concerned over the potential of a global climate catastrophe. First, there are warnings from history.
Climate change (either regional or global) has played a role in the collapse or transformation of numerous
previous societies (37) and in each of the five mass extinction events in Phanerozoic Earth history (38). The
current carbon pulse is occurring at an unprecedented geological speed and, by the end of the century, may surpass
thresholds that triggered previous mass extinctions (39, 40). The worst-case scenarios in the IPCC report project
temperatures by the 22nd century that last prevailed in the Early Eocene, reversing 50 million years of cooler climates in the space
of two centuries (41).

This is particularly alarming, as human

societies are locally adapted to a specific climatic niche. The rise of
large-scale, urbanized agrarian societies began with the shift to the stable climate of the Holocene ∼12,000 y ago
(42). Since then, human population density peaked within a narrow climatic envelope with a mean annual average temperature of
∼13 °C. Even today, the most
economically productive centers of human activity are concentrated in
those areas (43). The cumulative impacts of warming may overwhelm societal adaptive capacity.

Second, climatechange could directly trigger other catastrophic risks, such as international conflict, or
exacerbate infectious disease spread, and spillover risk. These could be potent extreme threat
multipliers.

Third, climate change could exacerbate vulnerabilities and cause multiple, indirect stresses (such as
economic damage, loss of land, and water and food insecurity) that coalesce into system-wide
synchronous failures. This is the path of systemic risk. Global crises tend to occur through such reinforcing
“synchronous failures” that spread across countries and systems, as with the 2007–2008 global financial crisis (44). It is
plausible that a sudden shift in climate could trigger systems failures that unravel societies across the globe.

The potential of systemic climate risk is marked : The most vulnerable states and communities will
continue to be the hardest hit in a warming world, exacerbating inequities. Fig. 1 shows how projected population density
intersects with extreme >29 °C mean annual temperature (MAT) (such temperatures are currently restricted to only 0.8% of Earth’s
land surface area). Using the medium-high scenario of emissions and population growth (SSP3-7.0 emissions, and SSP3 population
growth), by 2070, around 2 billion people are expected to live in these extremely hot areas. Currently, only 30 million people live in
hot places, primarily in the Sahara Desert and Gulf Coast (43).

Extreme temperatures combined with high humidity can negatively affect outdoor worker productivity and
yields of major cereal crops. These deadly heat conditions could significantly affect populated areas in South and southwest
Asia(47).

Fig. 2 takes a political lens on extreme heat, overlapping SSP3-7.0 or SSP5-8.5 projections of >29 °C MAT circa 2070, with the Fragile
States Index (a measurement of the instability of states). There
is a striking overlap between currently vulnerable
states and future areas of extreme warming. If current political fragility does not improve significantly in
the coming decades, then a belt of instability with potentially serious ramifications could occur.

Finally, climate
change could irrevocably undermine humanity’s ability to recover from another
cataclysm, such as nuclear war. That is, it could create significant latent risks (Table 1): Impacts that may be
manageable during times of stability become dire when responding to and recovering from catastrophe. These different causes for
catastrophic concern are interrelated and must be examined together.

Climate change turns every impact and causes extinction

Fred Lewsey, 8-1, 22, Climate Endgame Potential for global heating to end humanity
'dangerously underexplored', https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/climateendgame

Modelling done by the team shows areas of extreme heat (an annual average temperature of over 29 °C), could cover
two billion people by 2070. These areas not only some of the most densely populated, but also some of the most
politically fragile. “Average annual temperatures of 29 degrees currently affect around 30 million people in the Sahara and Gulf
Coast,” said co-author Chi Xu of Nanjing University. “By 2070,
these temperatures and the social and political
consequences will directly affect two nuclear powers, and seven maximum containment
laboratories housing the most dangerous pathogens. There is serious potential for disastrous
knock-on effects,” he said. Last year’s IPCC report suggested that if atmospheric CO2 doubles from pre-
industrial levels – something the planet is halfway towards – then there is an roughly 18% chance
temperatures will rise beyond 4.5°C. However, Kemp co-authored a “text mining” study of IPCC reports, published
earlier this year, which found that IPCC assessments have shifted away from high-end warming to increasingly focus on lower
temperature rises. This builds on previous work he contributed to showing that extreme temperature scenarios are “underexplored
relative to their likelihood”. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,” Kemp said. The team behind the PNAS paper
propose a research agenda that includes what they call the “four horsemen” of the climate endgame: famine and malnutrition,
extreme weather, conflict, and vector-borne diseases Rising
temperatures pose a major threat to global food
supply, they say, with increasing probabilities of “breadbasket failures ” as the world’s most agriculturally
productive areas suffer collective meltdowns. Hotter and more extreme weather could also create
conditions for new disease outbreaks as habitats for both people and wildlife shift and shrink. The authors
caution that climate breakdown would likely exacerbate other “interacting threats”: from
rising inequality and misinformation to democratic collapse and even new forms of
destructive AI weaponry. One possible future highlighted in the paper involves “warm wars” in which technologically
enhanced superpowers fight over both dwindling carbon space and giant experiments to deflect sunlight and reduce global
temperatures. Nuclear bomb test, Nevada, 1957. Kemp argues that climate change could impede recovery from disasters such as
nuclear war, but awareness of climate catastrophe could help spur public action, similar to the nuclear debate. More focus
should go on identifying all potential tipping points within “Hothouse Earth” say researchers:
from methane released by permafrost melts to the loss of forests that act as “carbon sinks”,
and even potential for vanishing cloud cover. “The more we learn about how our planet functions, the greater the
reason for concern,” said co-author Prof Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We
increasingly understand that our planet is a more sophisticated and fragile organism. We must do the math of disaster in order to
avoid it,” he said. Co-author Prof Kristie Ebi from the University of Washington said: “We need an interdisciplinary endeavour to
understand how climate change could trigger human mass morbidity and mortality.” Added Kemp: “A greater appreciation of
catastrophic climate scenarios can help compel public action. Understanding nuclear winter performed a similar function for debates
over nuclear disarmament.” “We know that temperature rise has a ‘fat tail’, which means a wide range of lower probability but
potentially extreme outcomes," he said. “Facing
a future of accelerating climate change while remaining
blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk-management at best and fatally foolish at worst.”

Failure to arrest climate change triggers societal collapse, resilience and

adaptation won’t solve

Masters, 7-28, 22, Jeff Masters, Ph.D., worked as a hurricane scientist with the NOAA Hurricane
Hunters from 1986-1990. After a near-fatal flight into category 5 Hurricane Hugo, he left the
Hurricane Hunters to pursue a safer passion - earning a 1997 Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology
from the University of Michigan, Yale Climate Connection, The future of global catastrophic risk
events from climate change, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/07/the-future-of-global-
catastrophic-risk-events-from-climate-change/
Four times since 1900, human civilization has suffered global catastrophes with extreme impacts: World War I (40 million killed), the
1918-19 influenza pandemic (40-50 million killed), World War II (40-50 million killed), and the COVID-19 pandemic (an economic
impact in the trillions, and a 2020-21 death toll of 14.9 million, according to the World Health Organization). These are the only
events since the beginning of the 20th century that meet the United Nations’s definition of global catastrophic risk (GCR): a
catastrophe global in impact that kills over 10 million people or causes over $10 trillion (2022 USD) in damage. But
human
activity is “creating greater and more dangerous risk” and increasing the odds of global
catastrophic risk events, by increasingly pushing humans beyond nine “planetary boundaries”
of environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate , warns a recent United Nations report,
“Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future”
(GAR2022) and its companion paper, “Global catastrophic risk and planetary boundaries: The relationship to global targets and
disaster risk reduction” (see July post, “Recklessness defined: breaking 6 of 9 planetary boundaries of safety“). These reports,
endorsed by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, make the case that the combined effects of
disasters, economic vulnerabilities, and overtaxing of ecosystems are creating “a dangerous
tendency for the world to tend toward the Global Collapse scenari o. This scenario presents a world where
planetary boundaries have been extensively crossed, and if GCR events have not already occurred or are in the process of
occurring, then their likelihood of doing so in the future is extreme … and total societal collapse is a
possibility.” Global catastrophic risk (GCR) events Human civilization has evolved during the Holocene Era, the stability of which
is now threatened by human-caused climate change. As a result, global catastrophic risk events from climate change are growing
increasingly likely, the U.N. May 2022 reports conclude. There are many other potential global catastrophic risk events, both natural
and human-caused (Figure 2), posing serious risks and warranting humanity’s careful consideration. But the report cautions of “large
uncertainty both for the likelihood of such events occurring and for their wider impact.” (Note that there is at least one other type of
Global Catastrophic Risk event the report omits: an intense geomagnetic storm. A repeat of the massive 1859 Carrington Event
geomagentic storm, which might crash the electrical grid for 130 million people in the U.S. for multiple years, could well be a global
catastrophic risk event.) Five types of GCR events with increasing likelihood in a warmer climate 1) Drought The
most serious
immediate global catastrophic risk event associated with climate change might well be a food-
system shock caused by extreme droughts and floods hitting multiple major global grain-
producing “breadbaskets” simultaneously. Such an event could lead to significant food prices spikes and result in mass
starvation, war, and a severe global economic recession. This prospect exists in 2022-23, exacerbated by war and the COVID-19
pandemic. The odds of such a food crisis will steadily increase as the climate warms. The author of this
post presented one such scenario in an op-ed published in The Hill last year, and insurance giant Lloyds of London detailed another
such scenario in a “food system shock” report issued in 2015. Lloyds gave uncomfortably high odds of such an event’s occurring—
well over 0.5% per year, or more than a 14% chance over a 30-year period. 2) War In his frightening book Food or War, published in
October 2019, science writer Julian Cribb documents 25
food conflicts that have led to famine, war, and the
deaths of more than a million people – mostly caused by drought . For example, China’s drought and
famine of 1630-31 led to a revolt that resulted in the collapse of the Ming Dynasty. Another drought in China in the mid-nineteenth
century led to the Taiping rebellion, which claimed 20-30 million lives. Since 1960, Cribb says, 40-60% of armed conflicts have been
linked to resource scarcity, and 80% of major armed conflicts occurred in vulnerable dry ecosystems. Hungry people are not peaceful
people, Cribb argues, and ranks South Asia – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka – as being at the most risk of future
food/water availability conflicts. In particular, nuclear powers India and Pakistan have a long history of conflict, so climate change
can be expected to increase the risk of nuclear war between them. A “limited” nuclear war between India and Pakistan, 100 bombs
dropped on cities. would be capable of triggering a global “nuclear winter” with a death toll up to two billion, Helfand (2013)
estimated. 3) Sea-level rise, combined with land subsidence During
the coming decades, it will be very difficult
to avoid a global catastrophic risk event from sea-level rise, when combined with coastal subsidence from
groundwater pumping, loss of river sedimentation from flood-control structures, and other human-caused effects: A moderate
global warming scenario (RCP 4.5) will put $7.9-12.7 trillion dollars of global coastal assets at risk of flooding by 2100, according to a
2020 study by Kirezci et al., “Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal flooding over the 21st
Century.” While this study did not take into account assets that inevitably will be protected by new coastal defenses to be erected,
neither did it consider the indirect costs of sea-level rise from increased storm surge damage, mass migration away from the coast,
salinification of fresh water supplies, and many other factors. A 2019 report by the Global Commission on Adaptation estimated that
sea level rise will lead to damages of more than $1 trillion per year by 2050. Furthermore, sea-level rise, combined with other
stressors, might bring about megacity collapse – a frightening possibility with infrastructure destruction, salinification of fresh water
resources, and a real estate collapse potentially combining to create a mass exodus of people, reducing the tax base of the city to
the point that it can no longer provide basic services. The collapse of even one megacity might have severe impacts on the global
economy, creating increased chances of a cascade of global catastrophic risk events. One megacity potentially at risk of this fate is
the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta, with a population of 10 million). Land subsidence (up to two inches per year) and sea-level rise
(about 1/8 inch per year) are so high in Jakarta that Indonesia currently is constructing a new capital city in Borneo. Plans call for
moving 8,000 civil servants there in 2024, and eventually move 1.5 million workers from Jakarta to the new capital by 2045. 4)
Pandemics As
Earth’s climate warms, wild animals will be forced to relocate their habitats and
increasingly enter regions with large human populations. This development will dramatically
increase the risk of a jump of viruses from animals to humans that could lead to a pandemic ,
according to a 2022 paper by Carlson et al. in Nature, “Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk.” Bats are the
type of animal of most concern Note that in the case of the 1918-19 influenza GCR event, a separate GCR event helped trigger it:
WWI, because of the mass movement of troops that spread the disease. The U.N. reports emphasize that one GCR event can trigger
other GCR events, with climate change acting as a threat multiplie 5) Ocean current changes Increased
precipitation and
glacial meltwater from global warming could flood the North Atlantic with enough fresh water
to slow down or even halt the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the ocean current
system that transports warm, salty water from the tropics to the North Atlantic and sends cold water to the south along the ocean
floor. If the AMOC were to shut down, the Gulf Stream would no longer pump warm, tropical water to the North Atlantic. Average
temperatures would cool in Europe by three degrees Celsius (5.4°F) or more in just a few years – not enough to trigger a full-fledged
ice age, but enough cooling to bring snows in June and killing frosts in July and August, as occurred in the famed 1816 “year without
a summer” caused by the eruption of Mt. Tambora. In addition, shifts in the jet stream pattern might bring about a more La Niña-like
climate, causing an increase in drought to much of the Northern Hemisphere, greatly straining global food and water supplies. A
study published in August 2021 looked at eight independent measures of the AMOC, and found that all eight showed early warning
signs that the ocean current system may be nearing collapse. “The AMOC may have evolved from relatively stable conditions to a
point close to a critical transition,” the authors wrote. Ocean acidification process Figure 4. A pteropod shell is shown dissolving over
time in seawater with a lower pH. When carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean from the atmosphere, the chemistry of the
seawater is changed. (image credit: NOAA) 6) Ocean acidification The increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is partially absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic . Since pre-industrial times,
the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units, to 8.1 – approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Increased
acidity is harmful to a wide variety of marine life, and acidic oceans have been linked to
several of Earth’s five major extinction events through geologic time. Under a business-as-usual
emission scenario, continued emissions of carbon dioxide could make ocean pH around 7.8 by 2100. The last time the ocean pH was
this low was during the middle Miocene, 14-17 million years ago. The Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction
event was occurring. 7) A punishing surprise In 2004, Harvard climate scientists Paul Epstein and James McCarthy conclude in a
paper titled “Assessing Climate Stability” that: “We
are already observing signs of instability within the
climate system. There is no assurance that the rate of greenhouse gas buildup will not force
the system to oscillate erratically and yield significant and punishing surprises .” Hurricane Sandy of
2012 was an example of such a punishing surprise, and climate change will increasingly bring low-probability, high impact weather
events – “black swan” events – that no one anticipated. As the late climate scientist Wally Broecker once said, “Climate is an angry
beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” Climate change can also be expected to reduce the likelihood of one type of global
catastrophic risk event: the impacts of a massive volcanic eruption. A magnitude-seven “super-colossal” eruption with a Volcanic
Explosivity Index of seven (VEI 7) occurred in 1815, when the Indonesian volcano Tambora erupted. (The Volcanic Explosivity Index is
a logarithmic scale like the Richter scale used to rate earthquakes, so a magnitude 7 eruption would eject ten times more material
than a magnitude 6 eruptions like that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.) The sulfur pumped by Tambora’s eruption into the
stratosphere dimmed sunlight so extensively that Northern Hemisphere temperatures fell by about 0.4-0.7 degree Celsius (0.7-1.0°F)
for 1-2 years afterward. The result: the famed Year Without a Summer in 1816. Killing frosts and snow storms in May and June 1816
in Eastern Canada and New England caused widespread crop failures, and lake and river ice were observed as far south as
Pennsylvania in July and August. Famine and food shortages rocked the world. Verosub (2011) estimated that future eruptions
capable of causing “volcanic winter” effects severe enough to depress global temperatures and trigger widespread crop failures for
one to two years afterwards should occur about once every 200-300 years, which translates to a 10-14% chance over a 30-year
period. An eruption today like the Tambora event of 1815 would challenge global food supplies already stretched thin by rising
population, decreased water availability, and conversion of cropland to grow biofuels. However, society’s vulnerability to major
volcanic eruptions is less than it was, since the globe has warmed significantly in the past 200 years. The famines from the eruption
of 1815 occurred during the Little Ice Age, when global temperatures were about 0.9 degree Celsius (1.6°F) cooler than today, so
crop failures from a Tambora-scale eruption would be less widespread than is the case with current global temperatures. Fifty years
from now, when global temperatures may be another 0.5 degree Celsius warmer, a magnitude seven eruption should be able to cool
the climate only to 1980s levels. However, severe impacts to food supplies still would result, since major volcanic eruptions cause
significant drought. (To illustrate, in the wake of the 1991 climate-cooling VEI 6 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo, land areas
of the globe in 1992 experienced their highest levels of drought for any year of the 1950-2000 period.) Unfortunately, the future risk
of a volcanic global catastrophic risk event may be increasing from causes unrelated to climate change, because of the increasing
amount of critical infrastructure being located next to seven known volcanic hot spots, argued Mani et al. in a 2021 paper, “Global
catastrophic risk from lower magnitude volcanic eruptions.” For example, a future VEI 6 eruption of Washington’s Mount Rainier
could cost more than $7 trillion over a 5-year period because of air traffic disruptions; similarly, a VEI 6 eruption of Indonesia’s
Mount Merapi could cost more than $2.5 trillion. Commentary Complex systems like human cultures are resilient, but are also
chaotic and unstable, and vulnerable to sudden collapse when multiple shocks occur. Jared Diamond’s provocative 2005 book,
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, described flourishing civilizations or cultures that eventually collapsed, like the
Greenland Norse, Maya, Anasazi, and Easter Islanders. Environmental problems like deforestation, soil problems, and water
availability were shown to be a key factor in many of these collapses. “One
of the main lessons to be learned from
the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other past societies,” Diamond
wrote, “is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after the society
reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power. … The reason is simple: maximum population,
wealth, resource consumption, and waste production mean maximum environmental impact,
approaching the limit where impact outstrips resources.” Some of Diamond’s conclusions, however, have
been challenged by anthropologists. For example, the 2010 book, Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability,
and the Aftermath of Empire, argued that societies are resilient and have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate
change-induced collapses. But
a 2021 paper by Beard et al., “Assessing Climate Change’s Contribution
to Global Catastrophic Risk,” argued, pointed to “reasons to be skeptical that such resilience
can be easily extrapolated into the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene,
with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic
climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global, and severe.” To paraphrase, one can think of the nine
planetary boundaries as credit cards, six of those nine credit cards charged to the hilt to develop civilization as it now exists. But
Mother Nature is an unforgiving lender, and there is precious little credit available to help avoid a cascade of interconnected global
catastrophic risk events that might send human society into total collapse, if society unwisely continues its business-as-usual
approach. Avoiding climate change-induced global catastrophic risk events is of urgent importance, and the UN report is filled with
promising approaches that can help. For example, it explains how systemic risk in food systems from rainfall variability in the Middle
East can be reduced using traditional and indigenous dryland management practices involving rotational grazing and access to
reserves in the dry season. More generally, the encouraging clean energy revolution now under way globally needs to be
accelerated. And humanity must do its utmost to pay back the loans taken from the Bank of Gaia, stop burning fossil fuels and
polluting the environment, and restoring degraded ecosystems. If we do not, the planet that sustains us will no longer be able to.

Climate change will collapse the biosphere, no recovery

Bercker, 7-23, 22, William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional
director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and
he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency
and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action
Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to
develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on
climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House, The Hill, Climate
change: The global Jenga game, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3571612-
climate-change-the-global-jenga-game/
It has been 34 years, an entire generation, since the U.S. government’s top climate scientist warned Congress the planet was
warming with potentially dire consequences. “It is already happening now,” Dr. James Hansen testified in 1988. “It is time to stop
waffling.” Scientists have struggled ever since to communicate this to the public and government officials. Scientists and their
translators have explained the pollution from burning fossil fuels is collecting above the Earth, where it acts like the glass in a
greenhouse and holds the sun’s heat close to the planet’s surface — the “greenhouse effect.” Or they have described the gases as an
invisible blanket covering the Earth and getting thicker with every ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) civilization emits. But before
metaphors and analogies can explain climate change, audiences must be open to hearing about it. Unfortunately, the message is not
good news. Many people with the power to do something about global warming have not listened because it’s easier to deny a
harsh reality than it is to fix it. Those of us who try to break through the communications barrier about climate change get fixated on
that crisis and fail to point out an even harsher reality: Climate change is only one manifestation of adverse human impacts on
nature. What’s really at risk is the biosphere — the atmosphere, the hydrosphere
(oceans), and the lithosphere (the Earth’s solid surface). These are where all life
on the planet exists, working together like the organs in our bodies. The best
metaphor for this is the popular game Jenga. Players build a tower out of blocks, then take turns
removing them one at a time. The loser is the person who removes the block that topples the

tower. ADVERTISING With industrialization and population growth, civilization has

been pulling blocks out of the Jenga tower for centuries , including many vital to the structure’s
integrity. The disturbing reality that many people don’t want to accept, or even

hear about, is that the hospitable Earth we have known for the last 10,000 to
12,000 years is on the verge of collapse. Some years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm
University convened 28 renowned scientists to identify the planet’s “safe operating spaces” and the boundaries humankind can’t
cross without creating large-scale, abrupt, irreversible changes in the biosphere. The team came up with nine critical spaces. Only
one is climate change. Others include ocean acidification, ozone depletion, land-use changes and freshwater losses. Geologists
believe the human impact on the biosphere is so extensive that it has created a new era in the planet’s 4.5-billion-year history. They
have proposed calling it the Anthropocene, a term signifying that humankind is now the most influential and destructive force on
Earth. The evidence, which ranges from plastic pollution to the fallout of nuclear weapons testing, reads like an indictment of
modern civilization because that’s what it is. Humanity is on trial, with little time left to fix things before the verdict is in and the
planet imposes its most severe penalty. We must answer some questions if we are generous enough to care about the future. What
happens if we remove the biodiversity block, the freshwater block or the block representing fertile soils? What if we remove the
blocks representing the Earth’s carbon and water cycles or the oceans’ chemistry? For that matter, how many blocks do we dare add
to the tower’s top to represent the human population’s growth? If the U.S. Congress, other world leaders and the general
population had heeded Hansen’s warning about climate change 34 years ago, we could have made the necessary corrections with
much less expense and disruption. Instead, the use of fossil fuels over the last three decades has made the blanket thicker, while
urbanization, agriculture, deforestation and pollution have moved us closer to the planet’s boundaries. The Jenga tower
is teetering while we blithely remove its blocks . Its loss of stability is too gradual to shock us awake.
But all life will suffer when it collapses. Here the Jenga analogy falls apart
because, unlike the game, we will not be able to rebuild the structure and start
over. This is not a message that political leaders, policymakers or friends and neighbors want to hear. It’s the ultimate
inconvenient truth. And yet, pulling civilization back from collapse would be the present

generation’s most precious gift to our progeny, the biosphere and the
incredibly beautiful web of life.

Failure to arrest climate change triggers societal collapse, resilience and

adaptation won’t solve
Masters, 7-28, 22, Jeff Masters, Ph.D., worked as a hurricane scientist with the NOAA Hurricane
Hunters from 1986-1990. After a near-fatal flight into category 5 Hurricane Hugo, he left the
Hurricane Hunters to pursue a safer passion - earning a 1997 Ph.D. in air pollution meteorology
from the University of Michigan, Yale Climate Connection, The future of global catastrophic risk
events from climate change, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/07/the-future-of-global-
catastrophic-risk-events-from-climate-change/
Four times since 1900, human civilization has suffered global catastrophes with extreme impacts: World War I (40 million killed), the
1918-19 influenza pandemic (40-50 million killed), World War II (40-50 million killed), and the COVID-19 pandemic (an economic
impact in the trillions, and a 2020-21 death toll of 14.9 million, according to the World Health Organization). These are the only
events since the beginning of the 20th century that meet the United Nations’s definition of global catastrophic risk (GCR): a
catastrophe global in impact that kills over 10 million people or causes over $10 trillion (2022 USD) in damage. But
human
activity is “creating greater and more dangerous risk” and increasing the odds of global
catastrophic risk events, by increasingly pushing humans beyond nine “planetary boundaries”
of environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate , warns a recent United Nations report,
“Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future”
(GAR2022) and its companion paper, “Global catastrophic risk and planetary boundaries: The relationship to global targets and
disaster risk reduction” (see July post, “Recklessness defined: breaking 6 of 9 planetary boundaries of safety“). These reports,
endorsed by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, make the case that the combined effects of
disasters, economic vulnerabilities, and overtaxing of ecosystems are creating “a dangerous
tendency for the world to tend toward the Global Collapse scenari o. This scenario presents a world where
planetary boundaries have been extensively crossed, and if GCR events have not already occurred or are in the process of
occurring, then their likelihood of doing so in the future is extreme … and total societal collapse is a
possibility.” Global catastrophic risk (GCR) events Human civilization has evolved during the Holocene Era, the stability of which
is now threatened by human-caused climate change. As a result, global catastrophic risk events from climate change are growing
increasingly likely, the U.N. May 2022 reports conclude. There are many other potential global catastrophic risk events, both natural
and human-caused (Figure 2), posing serious risks and warranting humanity’s careful consideration. But the report cautions of “large
uncertainty both for the likelihood of such events occurring and for their wider impact.” (Note that there is at least one other type of
Global Catastrophic Risk event the report omits: an intense geomagnetic storm. A repeat of the massive 1859 Carrington Event
geomagentic storm, which might crash the electrical grid for 130 million people in the U.S. for multiple years, could well be a global
catastrophic risk event.) Five types of GCR events with increasing likelihood in a warmer climate 1) Drought The
most serious
immediate global catastrophic risk event associated with climate change might well be a food-
system shock caused by extreme droughts and floods hitting multiple major global grain-
producing “breadbaskets” simultaneously. Such an event could lead to significant food prices spikes and result in mass
starvation, war, and a severe global economic recession. This prospect exists in 2022-23, exacerbated by war and the COVID-19
pandemic. The odds of such a food crisis will steadily increase as the climate warms. The author of this
post presented one such scenario in an op-ed published in The Hill last year, and insurance giant Lloyds of London detailed another
such scenario in a “food system shock” report issued in 2015. Lloyds gave uncomfortably high odds of such an event’s occurring—
well over 0.5% per year, or more than a 14% chance over a 30-year period. 2) War In his frightening book Food or War, published in
October 2019, science writer Julian Cribb documents 25
food conflicts that have led to famine, war, and the
deaths of more than a million people – mostly caused by drought . For example, China’s drought and
famine of 1630-31 led to a revolt that resulted in the collapse of the Ming Dynasty. Another drought in China in the mid-nineteenth
century led to the Taiping rebellion, which claimed 20-30 million lives. Since 1960, Cribb says, 40-60% of armed conflicts have been
linked to resource scarcity, and 80% of major armed conflicts occurred in vulnerable dry ecosystems. Hungry people are not peaceful
people, Cribb argues, and ranks South Asia – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka – as being at the most risk of future
food/water availability conflicts. In particular, nuclear powers India and Pakistan have a long history of conflict, so climate change
can be expected to increase the risk of nuclear war between them. A “limited” nuclear war between India and Pakistan, 100 bombs
dropped on cities. would be capable of triggering a global “nuclear winter” with a death toll up to two billion, Helfand (2013)
estimated. 3) Sea-level rise, combined with land subsidence During
the coming decades, it will be very difficult
to avoid a global catastrophic risk event from sea-level rise, when combined with coastal subsidence from
groundwater pumping, loss of river sedimentation from flood-control structures, and other human-caused effects: A moderate
global warming scenario (RCP 4.5) will put $7.9-12.7 trillion dollars of global coastal assets at risk of flooding by 2100, according to a
2020 study by Kirezci et al., “Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal flooding over the 21st
Century.” While this study did not take into account assets that inevitably will be protected by new coastal defenses to be erected,
neither did it consider the indirect costs of sea-level rise from increased storm surge damage, mass migration away from the coast,
salinification of fresh water supplies, and many other factors. A 2019 report by the Global Commission on Adaptation estimated that
sea level rise will lead to damages of more than $1 trillion per year by 2050. Furthermore, sea-level rise, combined with other
stressors, might bring about megacity collapse – a frightening possibility with infrastructure destruction, salinification of fresh water
resources, and a real estate collapse potentially combining to create a mass exodus of people, reducing the tax base of the city to
the point that it can no longer provide basic services. The collapse of even one megacity might have severe impacts on the global
economy, creating increased chances of a cascade of global catastrophic risk events. One megacity potentially at risk of this fate is
the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta, with a population of 10 million). Land subsidence (up to two inches per year) and sea-level rise
(about 1/8 inch per year) are so high in Jakarta that Indonesia currently is constructing a new capital city in Borneo. Plans call for
moving 8,000 civil servants there in 2024, and eventually move 1.5 million workers from Jakarta to the new capital by 2045. 4)
Pandemics As
Earth’s climate warms, wild animals will be forced to relocate their habitats and
increasingly enter regions with large human populations. This development will dramatically
increase the risk of a jump of viruses from animals to humans that could lead to a pandemic ,
according to a 2022 paper by Carlson et al. in Nature, “Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk.” Bats are the
type of animal of most concern Note that in the case of the 1918-19 influenza GCR event, a separate GCR event helped trigger it:
WWI, because of the mass movement of troops that spread the disease. The U.N. reports emphasize that one GCR event can trigger
other GCR events, with climate change acting as a threat multiplie 5) Ocean current changes Increased
precipitation and
glacial meltwater from global warming could flood the North Atlantic with enough fresh water
to slow down or even halt the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the ocean current
system that transports warm, salty water from the tropics to the North Atlantic and sends cold water to the south along the ocean
floor. If the AMOC were to shut down, the Gulf Stream would no longer pump warm, tropical water to the North Atlantic. Average
temperatures would cool in Europe by three degrees Celsius (5.4°F) or more in just a few years – not enough to trigger a full-fledged
ice age, but enough cooling to bring snows in June and killing frosts in July and August, as occurred in the famed 1816 “year without
a summer” caused by the eruption of Mt. Tambora. In addition, shifts in the jet stream pattern might bring about a more La Niña-like
climate, causing an increase in drought to much of the Northern Hemisphere, greatly straining global food and water supplies. A
study published in August 2021 looked at eight independent measures of the AMOC, and found that all eight showed early warning
signs that the ocean current system may be nearing collapse. “The AMOC may have evolved from relatively stable conditions to a
point close to a critical transition,” the authors wrote. Ocean acidification process Figure 4. A pteropod shell is shown dissolving over
time in seawater with a lower pH. When carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean from the atmosphere, the chemistry of the
seawater is changed. (image credit: NOAA) 6) Ocean acidification The increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is partially absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic . Since pre-industrial times,
the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units, to 8.1 – approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Increased
acidity is harmful to a wide variety of marine life, and acidic oceans have been linked to
several of Earth’s five major extinction events through geologic time. Under a business-as-usual
emission scenario, continued emissions of carbon dioxide could make ocean pH around 7.8 by 2100. The last time the ocean pH was
this low was during the middle Miocene, 14-17 million years ago. The Earth was several degrees warmer and a major extinction
event was occurring. 7) A punishing surprise In 2004, Harvard climate scientists Paul Epstein and James McCarthy conclude in a
paper titled “Assessing Climate Stability” that: “We
are already observing signs of instability within the
climate system. There is no assurance that the rate of greenhouse gas buildup will not force
the system to oscillate erratically and yield significant and punishing surprises .” Hurricane Sandy of
2012 was an example of such a punishing surprise, and climate change will increasingly bring low-probability, high impact weather
events – “black swan” events – that no one anticipated. As the late climate scientist Wally Broecker once said, “Climate is an angry
beast, and we are poking at it with sticks.” Climate change can also be expected to reduce the likelihood of one type of global
catastrophic risk event: the impacts of a massive volcanic eruption. A magnitude-seven “super-colossal” eruption with a Volcanic
Explosivity Index of seven (VEI 7) occurred in 1815, when the Indonesian volcano Tambora erupted. (The Volcanic Explosivity Index is
a logarithmic scale like the Richter scale used to rate earthquakes, so a magnitude 7 eruption would eject ten times more material
than a magnitude 6 eruptions like that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.) The sulfur pumped by Tambora’s eruption into the
stratosphere dimmed sunlight so extensively that Northern Hemisphere temperatures fell by about 0.4-0.7 degree Celsius (0.7-1.0°F)
for 1-2 years afterward. The result: the famed Year Without a Summer in 1816. Killing frosts and snow storms in May and June 1816
in Eastern Canada and New England caused widespread crop failures, and lake and river ice were observed as far south as
Pennsylvania in July and August. Famine and food shortages rocked the world. Verosub (2011) estimated that future eruptions
capable of causing “volcanic winter” effects severe enough to depress global temperatures and trigger widespread crop failures for
one to two years afterwards should occur about once every 200-300 years, which translates to a 10-14% chance over a 30-year
period. An eruption today like the Tambora event of 1815 would challenge global food supplies already stretched thin by rising
population, decreased water availability, and conversion of cropland to grow biofuels. However, society’s vulnerability to major
volcanic eruptions is less than it was, since the globe has warmed significantly in the past 200 years. The famines from the eruption
of 1815 occurred during the Little Ice Age, when global temperatures were about 0.9 degree Celsius (1.6°F) cooler than today, so
crop failures from a Tambora-scale eruption would be less widespread than is the case with current global temperatures. Fifty years
from now, when global temperatures may be another 0.5 degree Celsius warmer, a magnitude seven eruption should be able to cool
the climate only to 1980s levels. However, severe impacts to food supplies still would result, since major volcanic eruptions cause
significant drought. (To illustrate, in the wake of the 1991 climate-cooling VEI 6 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo, land areas
of the globe in 1992 experienced their highest levels of drought for any year of the 1950-2000 period.) Unfortunately, the future risk
of a volcanic global catastrophic risk event may be increasing from causes unrelated to climate change, because of the increasing
amount of critical infrastructure being located next to seven known volcanic hot spots, argued Mani et al. in a 2021 paper, “Global
catastrophic risk from lower magnitude volcanic eruptions.” For example, a future VEI 6 eruption of Washington’s Mount Rainier
could cost more than $7 trillion over a 5-year period because of air traffic disruptions; similarly, a VEI 6 eruption of Indonesia’s
Mount Merapi could cost more than $2.5 trillion. Commentary Complex systems like human cultures are resilient, but are also
chaotic and unstable, and vulnerable to sudden collapse when multiple shocks occur. Jared Diamond’s provocative 2005 book,
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, described flourishing civilizations or cultures that eventually collapsed, like the
Greenland Norse, Maya, Anasazi, and Easter Islanders. Environmental problems like deforestation, soil problems, and water
availability were shown to be a key factor in many of these collapses. “One
of the main lessons to be learned from
the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other past societies,” Diamond
wrote, “is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after the society
reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power. … The reason is simple: maximum population,
wealth, resource consumption, and waste production mean maximum environmental impact,
approaching the limit where impact outstrips resources.” Some of Diamond’s conclusions, however, have
been challenged by anthropologists. For example, the 2010 book, Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological Vulnerability,
and the Aftermath of Empire, argued that societies are resilient and have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate
change-induced collapses. But
a 2021 paper by Beard et al., “Assessing Climate Change’s Contribution
to Global Catastrophic Risk,” argued, pointed to “reasons to be skeptical that such resilience
can be easily extrapolated into the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene,
with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic
climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global, and severe.” To paraphrase, one can think of the nine
planetary boundaries as credit cards, six of those nine credit cards charged to the hilt to develop civilization as it now exists. But
Mother Nature is an unforgiving lender, and there is precious little credit available to help avoid a cascade of interconnected global
catastrophic risk events that might send human society into total collapse, if society unwisely continues its business-as-usual
approach. Avoiding climate change-induced global catastrophic risk events is of urgent importance, and the UN report is filled with
promising approaches that can help. For example, it explains how systemic risk in food systems from rainfall variability in the Middle
East can be reduced using traditional and indigenous dryland management practices involving rotational grazing and access to
reserves in the dry season. More generally, the encouraging clean energy revolution now under way globally needs to be
accelerated. And humanity must do its utmost to pay back the loans taken from the Bank of Gaia, stop burning fossil fuels and
polluting the environment, and restoring degraded ecosystems. If we do not, the planet that sustains us will no longer be able to.

Climate change will collapse the biosphere, no recovery

Bercker, 7-23, 22, William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional
director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and
he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency
and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action
Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to
develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on
climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House, The Hill, Climate
change: The global Jenga game, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3571612-
climate-change-the-global-jenga-game/
It has been 34 years, an entire generation, since the U.S. government’s top climate scientist warned Congress the planet was
warming with potentially dire consequences. “It is already happening now,” Dr. James Hansen testified in 1988. “It is time to stop
waffling.” Scientists have struggled ever since to communicate this to the public and government officials. Scientists and their
translators have explained the pollution from burning fossil fuels is collecting above the Earth, where it acts like the glass in a
greenhouse and holds the sun’s heat close to the planet’s surface — the “greenhouse effect.” Or they have described the gases as an
invisible blanket covering the Earth and getting thicker with every ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) civilization emits. But before
metaphors and analogies can explain climate change, audiences must be open to hearing about it. Unfortunately, the message is not
good news. Many people with the power to do something about global warming have not listened because it’s easier to deny a
harsh reality than it is to fix it. Those of us who try to break through the communications barrier about climate change get fixated on
that crisis and fail to point out an even harsher reality: Climate change is only one manifestation of adverse human impacts on
nature. What’s really at risk is the biosphere — the atmosphere, the hydrosphere
(oceans), and the lithosphere (the Earth’s solid surface). These are where all life
on the planet exists, working together like the organs in our bodies. The best
metaphor for this is the popular game Jenga. Players build a tower out of blocks, then take turns
removing them one at a time. The loser is the person who removes the block that topples the

tower. ADVERTISING With industrialization and population growth, civilization has

been pulling blocks out of the Jenga tower for centuries , including many vital to the structure’s
integrity. The disturbing reality that many people don’t want to accept, or even

hear about, is that the hospitable Earth we have known for the last 10,000 to
12,000 years is on the verge of collapse. Some years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm
University convened 28 renowned scientists to identify the planet’s “safe operating spaces” and the boundaries humankind can’t
cross without creating large-scale, abrupt, irreversible changes in the biosphere. The team came up with nine critical spaces. Only
one is climate change. Others include ocean acidification, ozone depletion, land-use changes and freshwater losses. Geologists
believe the human impact on the biosphere is so extensive that it has created a new era in the planet’s 4.5-billion-year history. They
have proposed calling it the Anthropocene, a term signifying that humankind is now the most influential and destructive force on
Earth. The evidence, which ranges from plastic pollution to the fallout of nuclear weapons testing, reads like an indictment of
modern civilization because that’s what it is. Humanity is on trial, with little time left to fix things before the verdict is in and the
planet imposes its most severe penalty. We must answer some questions if we are generous enough to care about the future. What
happens if we remove the biodiversity block, the freshwater block or the block representing fertile soils? What if we remove the
blocks representing the Earth’s carbon and water cycles or the oceans’ chemistry? For that matter, how many blocks do we dare add
to the tower’s top to represent the human population’s growth? If the U.S. Congress, other world leaders and the general
population had heeded Hansen’s warning about climate change 34 years ago, we could have made the necessary corrections with
much less expense and disruption. Instead, the use of fossil fuels over the last three decades has made the blanket thicker, while
urbanization, agriculture, deforestation and pollution have moved us closer to the planet’s boundaries. The Jenga tower
is teetering while we blithely remove its blocks . Its loss of stability is too gradual to shock us awake.
But all life will suffer when it collapses. Here the Jenga analogy falls apart
because, unlike the game, we will not be able to rebuild the structure and start
over. This is not a message that political leaders, policymakers or friends and neighbors want to hear. It’s the ultimate
inconvenient truth. And yet, pulling civilization back from collapse would be the present

generation’s most precious gift to our progeny, the biosphere and the
incredibly beautiful web of life.
Climate change causes extinction
Alexander-Sears 21, PhD Candidate in Political Science at The University of Toronto, former
Professor of International Relations at the Universidad de Las Américas (Nathan, “Great Powers,
Polarity, and Existential Threats to Humanity: An Analysis of the Distribution of the Forces of
Total Destruction in International Security,” Conference Paper: International Studies
Association, 2021 Annual Conference, Research Gate)
Humanity faces existential risks from the large-scale destruction of Earth’s natural environment
making the planet less hospitable for humankind (Wallace-Wells 2019). The decline of some of
Earth’s natural systems may already exceed the “planetary boundaries” that represent a “safe
operating space for humanity” (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Humanity has become one of the driving
forces behind Earth’s climate system (Crutzen 2002). The major anthropogenic drivers of climate
change are the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and gas), combined with the degradation of
Earth’s natural systems for absorbing carbon dioxide, such as deforestation for agriculture (e.g.,
livestock and monocultures) and resource extraction (e.g., mining and oil), and the warming of
the oceans (Kump et al. 2003). While humanity has influenced Earth’s climate since at least the
Industrial Revolution, the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the mid-
twentieth century—the “Great Acceleration” (Steffen et al. 2007; 2015; McNeill & Engelke 2016)
— is responsible for contemporary climate change, which has reached approximately 1°C above
preindustrial levels (IPCC 2018). Climate change could become an existential threat to humanity
if the planet’s climate reaches a “Hothouse Earth” state (Ripple et al. 2020). What are the
dangers? There are two mechanisms of climate change that threaten humankind. The direct
threat is extreme heat. While human societies possesses some capacity for adaptation and
resilience to climate change, the physiological response of humans to heat stress imposes
physical limits—with a hard limit at roughly 35°C wet-bulb temperature (Sherwood et al. 2010).
A rise in global average temperatures by 3–4°C would increase the risk of heat stress, while 7°C
could render some regions uninhabitable, and 11–12°C would leave much of the planet too hot
for human habitation (Sherwood et al. 2010). The indirect effects of climate change could
include, inter alia, rising sea levels affecting coastal regions (e.g., Miami and Shanghai), or even
swallowing entire countries (e.g., Bangladesh and the Maldives); extreme and unpredictable
weather and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and forest fires); environmental pressures on
water and food scarcity (e.g., droughts from less-dispersed rainfall, and lower wheat-yields at
higher temperatures); the possible inception of new bacteria and viruses; and, of course, large-
scale human migration (World Bank 2012; Wallace-Well 2019; Richards, Lupton & Allywood
2001). While it is difficult to determine the existential implications of extreme environmental
conditions, there are historic precedents for the collapse of human societies under
environmental pressures (Diamond 2005). Earth’s “big five” mass extinction events have been
linked to dramatic shifts in Earth’s climate (Ward 2008; Payne & Clapham 2012; Kolbert 2014;
Brannen 2017), and a Hothouse Earth climate would represent terra incognita for humanity.
Thus, the assumption here is that a Hothouse Earth climate could pose an existential threat to
the habitability of the planet for humanity (Steffen et al. 2018., 5). At what point could climate
change cross the threshold of an existential threat to humankind? The complexity of Earth’s
natural systems makes it extremely difficult to give a precise figure (Rockstrom et al. 2009; ).
However, much of the concern about climate change is over the danger of crossing “tipping
points,” whereby positive feedback loops in Earth’s climate system could lead to potentially
irreversible and self-reinforcing “runaway” climate change. For example, the melting of Arctic
“permafrost” could produce additional warming, as glacial retreat reduces the refractory effect
of the ice and releases huge quantities of methane currently trapped beneath it. A recent study
suggests that a “planetary threshold” could exist at global average temperature of 2°C above
preindustrial levels (Steffen et al. 2018; also IPCC 2018). Therefore, the analysis here takes the
2°C rise in global average temperatures as representing the lower-boundary of an existential
threat to humanity, with higher temperatures increasing the risk of runaway climate change
leading to a Hothouse Earth. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change set the goal of limiting the
increase in global average temperatures to “well below” 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the
increase to 1.5°C. If the Paris Agreement goals are met, then nations would likely keep climate
change below the threshold of an existential threat to humanity. According to Climate Action
Tracker (2020), however, current policies of states are expected to produce global average
temperatures of 2.9°C above preindustrial levels by 2100 (range between +2.1 and +3.9°C),
while if states succeed in meeting their pledges and targets, global average temperatures are
still projected to increase by 2.6°C (range between +2.1 and +3.3°C). Thus, while the Paris
Agreements sets a goal that would reduce the exis 6 - tential risk of climate change, the actual
policies of states could easily cross the threshold that would constitute an existential threat to
humanity (CAT 2020)

Warming causes extinction and turns their impacts - death spirals make
resilience impossible.
Beard et al. 21 [S.J. Beard, Lauren Holt, Asaf Tzachor, Luke Kemp, Shahar Avin, Phil Torres,
and Haydn Belfield, * Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, “Assessing climate change’s
contribution to global catastrophic risk,” 2021, Futures, Vol. 127,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102673, EA – Table 1 & Fig. 2 Omitted]
3.1. Climate change and planetary boundaries

While most of the impacts of climate change so far have fallen within the range of what was
experienced during the Holocene, the rate of change is faster than in the Holocene and we are now beginning to
see climate change push beyond these boundaries. In the latest edition of the planetary boundaries’ framework,
climate change is placed in the zone of increasing risk, implying that while this boundary has been breached, there remains some
potential for normal functioning and recovery (Steffen et al., 2015). It thus lies between what the authors identify as the ‘safe zone’
and other ‘high risk’ transgressions, such as disruption to the biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and loss of biosphere
integrity.

As part of their discussion of BRIHN Baum and Handoh (2014) note that climate change is the planetary boundary for which the risk
to humanity has received most meaningful consideration and they suggest that this attention is deserved. Yet little research
attention has been paid to climate change’s extreme or catastrophic effects. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that, despite
currently falling outside of the area of high risk, climate
change has the clear potential to push humanity
across a threshold of irreversible loss by “changing major ocean circulation patterns, causing
massive sea-level rise, and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events… that displace
people, and ruin economies.” Even if humanity was resilient to each of these individual impacts, a global
catastrophe could occur if these impacts were to occur rapidly and simultaneously.

One scenario that has received comparatively more attention is that of the global
climate crossing a tipping point that
would trigger environmental feedback loops (such as declining albedo from melting ice or the
release of methane from clathrates) and cascading effects (such a shifting rainfall patterns that trigger
desertification and soil erosion). After this point, anthropogenic activity may cease to be the
main driver of climate change, making it accelerate and become harder to stop (King et al., 2015).
Other scenarios can be discerned from the numerous historical cases in which the modest, usually regional, climatic changes
experienced during the Holocene have been implicated in the collapse of previous societies, including the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku, the
Akkadians, the Western Roman Empire, the lowland Maya, and dozens of others (Diamond, 2005, Fagan, 2008). These provide a
precedent for how a changing climate can trigger or contribute to societal breakdown. At present, our
understanding of this phenomena is limited, and the IPCC has labelled its findings as “low confidence” due to a lack of understanding
of cause and effect and restrictions in historical data (Klein et al., 2014). Further study and cooperation between archaeologists,
historians, climate scientists and global catastrophic risk scholars could overcome some of these limitations by identifying how the
impacts of climate change translate into social transformation and collapse, and hence what the impacts of more rapid and extreme
climatic changes might be. There is also the potential for larger studies into how global climate variations have coincided with
collapse and violence at the regional level (Zhang, Chiyung, Chusheng, Yuanqing, & Fung, 2005; Zhang et al., 2006). However, these
need to be interpreted and generalized with care given the differences between pre-industrial and modern societies.

Societies also have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate change induced collapses (McAnany and Yoffee,
2009). However, there are two reasons to be sceptical that such resilience can be easily extrapolated into
the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene, with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has
greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global,
and severe. Large-scale states did not emerge until the onset of the Holocene (Richerson, Boyd, & Bettinger, 2001), and
societies have since remained in a surprisingly narrow climatic niche of roughly 15 mean annual average
temperature (Xu, Kohler, Lenton, Svenning, & Scheffer, 2020). A return to agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyles could thus have
more devastating and long-lasting effects in a world of rapid climate change and ecological disruption (Gowdy, 2020).7 Second,
modern human societies may have developed hidden fragilities that amplify the shocks posed by
climate change (Mannheim 2020) and the complex, tightly-coupled and interdependent nature of
our socio-economic systems makes it more likely that the failure of a few key states or industries
due to climate change could cascade into a global collapse (Kemp, 2019).

A third set of plausible scenarios stem from climate change’s broader environmental impacts. Apart from being a planetary
boundary of its own, Steffen et al. (2015) point out that climate change is intimately connected with other
planetary boundaries (see Table 1). Climate change is thus identified by the authors as one of two ‘core’ boundaries with
the potential “to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.” This
transformative potential was elaborated on in subsequent work exploring how the world could be pushed towards a ‘Hothouse
Earth’ state, even with anthropogenic temperature rises as low as 2 °C (Steffen et al., 2018).

The connection between climate change and biosphere integrity (the survival of complex adaptive
ecosystems supporting diverse forms of life) is particularly strong. The IPCC is highly confident that climate change is
adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to desertification and land degradation in many areas and changing the
range, abundance and seasonality of many plant and animal species (Arneth et al., 2019). Similarly, the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has reported that climate change is restricting the range of nearly half
the world’s threatened mammal species and a quarter of threatened birds, with marine, coastal, and arctic ecosystems worst
affected (Diaz et al., 2019). According to one estimate, climate change could cause 15–37 % of all species to
become ‘committed to extinction’ by mid-century (Thomas et al., 2004).

Disruption to biosphere integrity can have profound economic and social repercussions,
ranging from loss of ecosystem services and natural resources to the destruction of traditional
knowledge and livelihoods. For instance, desertification, which threatens a quarter of Earth’s land area and a fifth of the
population, is already estimated to cost developing nations 4–8 % of their GDP (United Nations, 2011). Many other rapid regime
shifts involving loss of biosphere integrity have been observed, including shifts in arid vegetation, freshwater eutrophication, and the
collapse of fish populations (Amano et al. 2020). There is a theoretical possibility of still more profound regime shifts at the global
level (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018). However, the contribution of loss of biosphere integrity to GCR is yet to be assessed.
Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that it is unlikely to threaten human civilization, due both to a lack of plausible mechanisms for
this threat and the fact that “local and regional biodiversity is often staying the same because species from elsewhere replace local
losses.” However, in their classification of GCRs, Avin et al. (2018) suggest the potential for ecological collapse to threaten the safety
boundaries of multiple critical systems with diverse spread mechanisms at a range of scales, from the biogeochemical and
anatomical to the ecological and sociotechnological. Note that both these studies were conducted for largely conceptual purposes
and should not be taken as rigorous analyses of this risk, this topic warrants further investigation.

3.2. Classifying climate change’s contributions to global catastrophic risk

Climate change’s contribution to GCR goes well beyond its impact on the earth system. Taking Avin et al.’s list of critical systems, we
note that previous studies have mostly focused on the effects of climate change on physical and biogeochemical systems (e.g. global
temperature and sea-level rise) or the lower-level critical systems that are most directly related to human health and survival (e.g.
Heath Stress). However, these represent a very limited assessment of risk as it only accounts for climate change as a direct hazard/
threat and our "ontological" vulnerabilities to it. A more comprehensive risk assessment must consider the higher-order critical
systems threatened by climate change passively (through a lack of alternatives) and actively (through intentional design).

The probability of a global catastrophe is higher when sociotechnological and environmental

systems are tightly coupled, creating a potential for reinforcing feedback loops. If environmental change
produces social changes that perpetuate further environmental change, then this could actively work against our efforts at
adaptation. When this change has the potential to produce significant harm, via human vulnerabilities and exposure, we describe
such loops as ‘global
systems death spirals.’ These spirals could produce self-perpetuating catastrophes ,
whereby the energy and resources required to reverse or adapt to collapse are beyond the means of
dwindling human societies. Feedback loops like this could thus create tipping points beyond which returning to
anything like present conditions would become extremely difficult. Global systems would shift to very different states in which the
prospects for humanity would likely be bleaker.

In the rest of this section, we explore just one potential spiral, between an ecological system (the biosphere) and two
sociotechnological systems (the human food and global political systems). We explore each system and its interactions. Fig. 2
illustrates our model of this spiral.

3.2.1. The human food system

Climate change’s impact on biosphere integrity (discussed in the previous section) could harm the human
food system due to loss of ecosystem services, disruption of the cycles of water, nitrogen and
phosphates, and changes in the dynamics of plant and animal health (B´elanger & Pilling, 2019). Crossing
this planetary boundary is already having severe implications for global food security, including loss
of soil fertility and insect-mediated pollination (Diaz et al., 2019).

Systems for the production and allocation of food are already enduring significant stress. The sources of stress include climate
change, soil erosion, water scarcity, and phosphorus depletion. The natural resource base, arable land and freshwater upon which
food production rely are being degraded. While
global food productivity and production has increased
dramatically over the past century to meet rising demand from an expanding global population and rising standard of
living, these constraints and risks are increasing the vulnerability of our global food supply to rapid
and global disruptions that could constitute global catastrophes (Baum, Denkenberger, Pearce, Robock, &
Winkler, 2015).

Climate change will further reduce food security in at least three interconnected ways. First, it will affect growing
conditions, including direct threats to agricultural yields from heat, humidity, and precipitation in
many regions; although initially improving conditions in some (Lott, Christidis, & Stott, 2013). Second, it will increase the range
of agricultural pests and diseases (Harvell et al., 2002). Third, it will increase the occurrence of extreme
weather events that impair the integrity of food production and distribution networks , from
production to harvest, post-harvest, transport, storage, and distribution, thereby increasing our vulnerability and
exposure to supply shocks (Bailey et al., 2015). The IPCC estimates, with medium confidence, that at around 2 °C of global
warming the risk from permafrost degradation and food supply instabilities will be ‘very high’, while at around 3 °C of global
warming the risk from vegetation loss, wildfire damage, and dryland water scarcity will also be very high (Arneth et al., 2019). Very
few studies have considered the impacts of 4 °C of global warming or more; however, the IPCC highlighted one study finding that
any potential agricultural gains from climate change will be lost by this point and there could be a decrease of 19 % in maize yields
and 68 % in bean yields in Africa, an 8 % reduction in yields in South Asia, and a substantial negative impact on fisheries by 2050
(Porter et al., 2014). Furthermore, multiple extreme weather events could disrupt food distribution networks (Bailey and Wellesley,
2017).

While there are opportunities to adapt, disruption to the entire global food system cannot be resolved via food aid alone. Indeed,
there is the potential for isolationist or heavy-handed responses that would do more harm than good.
Given the high degree of interconnectivity and feedback within the global food system, our initial research suggests that any one
of these climate change effects could trigger scenarios that would critically undermine the global
food system’s ability to meet the minimum nutrition for well-being; making food security for all an unachievable goal, let alone
rise to the challenge of continuing to grow (A. Tzachor, 2019, 2020); this would constitute what Kuhlemann (2019) terms a
‘threshold of significance.’

3.2.2. The global political system

Disrupting the global food system can create and exacerbate conflict and state failure (Brinkman &
Hendrix, 2011). However, once again, this needs to be seen against the backdrop of a global political system under stress, with
climate change as a significant contributing factor. Climate change influences political systems in many ways, from being a locus of
activism and a stimulus for reform to driving rising inequality and population displacement (Arneth et al., 2019; Diffenbaugh &
Burke, 2019). This is not a new phenomenon, changes in the climate are believed to have contributed to conflict between people
and states throughout human history, driven by resource scarcity, population displacement, and inequality (Lee, 2009; Mach et al.,
2019). As part of a comprehensive risk assessment of climate change, King et al. (2015) conducted anextensive literature
review on climate change and conflict and used this to inform a series of international wargaming exercises. These found that
climate change is expected to increase international conflict while highlighting the role that population
displacement, state failure, and water and food insecurity would play in this (see also Mach et al., 2019; Natalini, Jones, & Bravo,
2015).

Quantitative studies of the impact of climate change on violence and conflict have provided more mixed results. A survey of
empirical studies by Detges (2017) found that there may be multiple differing trends: extreme weather events appear to have more
significant effects on violence than do long-term climate trends, while levels of small-scale conflict and interpersonal violence appear
to be more affected than large-scale conflicts and international war. Empirical studies also highlight how climate change’s impact on
conflict is predominantly as a risk multiplier and intensifier. Thus, climate
change may contribute more by increasing our
vulnerability to other conflict-inducing factors, such as loss of livelihood, forced migration,
environmental change, and food insecurity, than by acting as a direct cause of conflict (Abel, Brottrager, Cuaresma,
& Muttarak, 2019; Hsiang, Burke, & Miguel, 2013; Schubert et al., 2008).8

Of particular relevance to GCR is the effect of climate change on the risk of nuclear war (Parthemore, Femia, & Werrell, 2018).
However, to our knowledge, this has never been rigorously assessed, although the potential is certainly there. One recent model of
the risk of nuclear war highlighted how varied, and common, incidents with the potential to trigger a nuclear exchange are (Baum,
de Neufville, & Barrett, 2018). It outlined 14 different causal pathways to an exchange, including the escalation of conventional wars
and international crises, human error, and the emergence of new non-state actors. For all but two of these, they identify historical
examples of potentially precipitating incidents, with 60 incidents in total (i.e. a little less than one a year). This suggests that the
absence of nuclear war was less due to a lack of potential causes, tan the global political system’s ability
to defuse them. Thus, the real significance of climate change may be its capacity to undermine this system:
the combination of social, political, and environmental disruption, a lingering sense of global injustice, and
rising food, water, and energy insecurity could increase the probability that crises escalate or
that false alarms are mistaken for genuine emergencies. This topic needs further research.
3.3. The emergence of a global systems death spiral

Yet, we should not conclude that a nuclear exchange is the only, or even most likely, scenario in which
political instability might produce a global catastrophe. Conflict and political instability, even of
moderate severity, are themselves two of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss due to
breakdowns in monitoring, governance, and (public and private) property rights (Baynham-Herd, Amano, Sutherland, &
Donald, 2018). This closes a potentially reinforcing feedback loop between loss of biosphere integrity, food insecurity and political
breakdown.

The mechanisms by which these cascading failures might spread include many of the natural, anthropogenic,
and replicator effects identified by Avin et al. (2018), making them harder to contain. At the natural level, climate
change involves changes to the global atmospheric and biogeochemical systems and poses other
naturally spreading harms, like global ecological collapse. At the anthropogenic level, the global
interconnectedness of sociotechnological systems means that while small shocks are easier to recover from,
larger shocks can be harder to contain and control. Finally, biological and informational replication
can also spread the negative impacts of climate change, from vector-borne diseases and invasive species to
climate fatalism and dangerous geoengineering technologies.

Given these numerous spread mechanisms, critical system failures could precipitate global
catastrophes. Furthermore, the spiral we have explored is unlikely to be the only set of interlinked systemic disruptions that
climate change could initiate (other death spirals could involve bio-insecurity and disease), nor are these the only causal connections
between these three systems. Until we understand the nature of such death spirals better, we must act cautiously. We now turn to
consider what this would mean.

Warming causes extinction

Bryce, 20 – Emma, citing Nelson, Roman, and Kemp---Cassidy Nelson is Co-lead of the
biosecurity team at Oxford), Sabin Roman earned a PhD in Complex Systems Simulation from
the University of Southampton, and both Roman and Luke Kemp are research associates at the
Cambridge University. "What Could Drive Humans to Extinction?" Real Clear Science, 7-27-2020,
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2020/07/27/what_could_drive_humans_to_extincti
on.html -- Iowa

Nuclear war

An existential risk is different to what we might think of as a "regular" hazard or threat, explained
Luke Kemp, a research associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Kemp
studies historical civilizational collapse and the risk posed by climate change in the present day. " A
risk in the typical
terminology is supposed to be composed of a hazard, a vulnerability and an exposure," he told Live
Science. "You can think about this in terms of an asteroid strike. So the hazard itself is the asteroid.
The vulnerability is our inability to stop it from occurring — the lack of an intervention system.
And our exposure is the fact that it actually hits the Earth in some way, shape or form. "

Take nuclear war, which history and popular culture have etched onto our minds as one of the
biggest potential risks to human survival. Our vulnerability to this threat grows if countries produce highly-enriched
uranium, and as political tensions between nations escalate. That vulnerability determines our exposure.

As is the case for all existential risks, there

aren't hard estimates available on how much of Earth's
population a nuclear firestorm might eliminate . But it's expected that the effects of a large-scale nuclear winter —
the period of freezing temperatures and limited food production that would follow a war, caused by a smoky nuclear haze blocking
sunlight from reaching the Earth — would be profound. "From most of the modeling I've seen, it would be absolutely horrendous. It
could lead to the death of large swathes of humanity. But it seems unlikely that it by itself
would lead to extinction." Kemp said.
Pandemics The misuse of biotechnology is another existential risk that keeps researchers up at night. This is technology that
harnesses biology to make new products. One in particular concerns Cassidy Nelson: the abuse of biotechnology to engineer deadly,
quick-spreading pathogens. "I worry about a whole range of different pandemic scenarios. But I do think the ones that could be
man-made are possibly the greatest threat we could have from biology this century," she said. As acting co-lead of the biosecurity
team at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, Nelson researches biosecurity issues
that face humanity, such as new infectious diseases, pandemics and biological weapons. She recognizes that a pathogen that's been
specifically engineered to be as contagious and deadly as possible could be far more damaging than a natural pathogen, potentially
dispatching large swathes of Earth's population in limited time. "Nature is pretty phenomenal at coming up with pathogens through
natural selection. It's terrible when it does. But it doesn't have this kind of direct 'intent,'" Nelson explained. "My concern would be if
you had a bad actor who intentionally tried to design a pathogen to have as much negative impact as possible, through how
contagious it was, and how deadly it was.” But despite the fear that might create — especially in our currently pandemic-stricken
world — she believes that the probability that this would occur is slim. (It's also worth mentioning that all evidence points to the fact
that COVID-19 wasn't created in a lab.) While the scientific and technological advances are steadily lowering the threshold for people
to be able to do this, "that also means that our capabilities for doing something about it are rising gradually," she said. "That gives
me a sense of hope, that if we could actually get on top [of it], that risk balance could go in our favor." Still, the magnitude of the
potential threat keeps researchers' attention trained on this risk.

From climate change to AI

A tour of the threats to human survival can hardly exclude climate change, a phenomenon that
(is) already driving the decline and extinction of multiple species across the planet. Could it
hurl humanity toward the same fate?

The accompaniments to climate change — food insecurity, water scarcity, and extreme weather
events — are set to increasingly threaten human survival, at regional scales. But looking to the
future, climate change is also what Kemp described as an "existential risk multiplier" at global
scales, meaning that it amplifies other threats to humanity's survival. "It does appear to have all
these relationships to both conflict as well as political change, which just makes the world a
much more dangerous place to be." Imagine: food or water scarcity intensifying international
tensions, and triggering nuclear wars with potentially enormous human fatalities.

This way of thinking about extinction highlights the interconnectedness of existential risks. As
Kemp hinted before, it's unlikely that a mass extinction event would result from a single
calamity like a nuclear war or pandemic. Rather, history shows us that most civilizational
collapses are driven by several interwoven factors. And extinction as we typically imagine it —
the rapid annihilation of everyone on Earth — is just one way it could play out.

Climate change threatens human extinction:

C. E. Richards et al, 2/19/2021 (Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge),
CLIMATIC CHANGE, Feb. 19, 2021. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2021 from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-02957-w

There is increasing concern that climate change poses an existential risk to humanity.
Understanding these worst-case scenarios is essential for good risk management. However, our knowledge of the causal pathways
through which climate change could cause societal collapse is underdeveloped. This paper aims to identify and structure an
empirical evidence base of the climate change, food insecurity and societal collapse pathway. We first review the societal collapse
and existential risk literature and define a set of determinants of societal collapse. We develop an original methodology, using these
determinants as societal collapse proxies, to identify an empirical evidence base of climate change, food insecurity and societal
collapse in contemporary society and then structure it using a novel-format causal loop diagram (CLD) defined at global scale and
national granularity. The resulting evidence base varies in temporal and spatial distribution of study and in the type of data-driven
methods used. The resulting CLD documents the spread of the evidence base, using line thickness and colour to depict density and
type of data-driven method respectively. It enables exploration of how the effects of climate change may undermine agricultural
systems and disrupt food supply, which can lead to economic shocks, socio-political instability as well as starvation, migration and
conflict. Suggestions are made for future work that could build on this paper to further develop our qualitative understanding of,
and quantitative complex systems modelling capabilities for analysing, the causal pathways between climate change and societal
collapse. Introduction Despite recent social protests and climate emergency declarations, efforts to mitigate climate
change to-date are insufficient (Ripple et al. 2019). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise and global warming
above 3 °C is increasingly likely this century (Raftery et al. 2017). There is emerging evidence of amplifying feedbacks accelerating
(Natali 2019) and dampening feedbacks decelerating (Walker et al. 2019). These feedbacks exacerbate the possibility of runaway
global warming (Steffen et al. 2018), estimated at 8 °C or greater by 2100 (Schneider et al. 2019). Such temperature increases
translate to a range of real dangers (The Center for Climate and Security 2020), shifting the narrow climate niche within which
humans have resided for millennia (Xu et al. 2020). Looking beyond the framing of ‘global warming’, there
is concern that
the effects of climate change may pose an existential risk to humanity, one that threatens
‘societal collapse’ or even extinction (Ord 2020). Understanding these worst-case scenarios is essential for good risk
management (Kunreuther et al. 2013). Improving awareness of potential pathways through which climate change poses such a risk
can help inform decision-making about interventions (Shepherd et al. 2018). Considering societal impacts that are more tangible for
individuals, businesses and governments (Briggs et al. 2015), and better aligned with conventional risk priorities (Wagner and
Weitzman 2015), may facilitate more effective action to mitigate climate change (Weber 2006). A
number of pathways
through which climate change could cause societal collapse have been identified, one being via
food insecurity (Gowdy 2020). Climate change is predicted to undermine agricultural systems and
disrupt food supply (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF 2020), which may lead to economic shocks, socio-political
instability as well as starvation, migration and conflict at local through to global scale (Rivington et al.
2015). While the climate science underpinning global warming estimates is well established (IPCC 2014), albeit subject to
sensitivities, the uncertainties increase significantly when we start to consider these tangible societal impacts given the complex
relationships involved (Butzer 2012). Our understanding of worst-case scenarios, and particularly of empirical evidence addressing
the causal pathways through which climate change may cause societal collapse, is underdeveloped (Kemp 2020).

Warming causes extinction – adaptation doesn’t assume tipping points

and corporations prevent intervening actors.
John Coviello 21 [John Coviello, 12-18-2021, Author of One Last Breath: A Look Back at 200
Years of Global Warming. Winner of the prestigious 2021 Book Excellence Award for
Sustainability. Are Humans Facing Near-Term Human Extinction Due to Global Warming?
Soapboxie, https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Are-Humans-Facing-Near-Term-Human-
Extinction-Due-to-Global-Warming, DOA: 12-26-2021 //ArchanSen] *edited for sexist language

While some scientists started raising concerns about the burning of fossil fuels eventually warming the Earth’s atmosphere as
far back as the middle 20th century, a consensus among scientists that global warming is a problem
we have to address didn’t form until the later part of the 20th century. Now that we’re
progressing through the 21st century, why are some in scientific circles raising concerns
about our near-term survival as a species? In recent years, the effects of global warming
have become exceedingly extreme. In fact, from record-breaking heatwaves to unprecedented
forest fires to melting polar ice sheets, the effects of global warming are occurring faster
than the scientific community had projected they would just a decade or two ago. The
concern about our viability as a species on Earth is due to the fast-developing effects of
global warming. If we don’t address the causes of global warming or take mitigative actions, it could transform
into runaway global warming that would heat up the Earth so rapidly that humans and
many other species will likely be imperiled. Many scientists wrongly had confidence that
[hu]mankind would come to its senses when faced with the stark reality that our survival as
a species is threatened and we’d collectively take actions to avert catastrophic global
warming by discontinuing our burning of fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable
non-carbon energy sources. However, despite some tepid efforts to cut carbon emissions ,
such as the 2016 Paris Agreement, it appears that due to a combination of ignorance and a concerted
effort by the fossil fuels industry to stop any efforts to move away from carbon-based
products, we will likely not address our continuing release of global warming gases
into Earth’s atmosphere until it’s too late and the global warming we’ve experienced in
recent decades transforms into irreversible and catastrophic runaway global warming.
This will occur because human-caused global warming will eventually trigger natural climate
warming feedback loops to take over. At that point, global warming will be like an
unstoppable runaway train, as the Earth’s atmospheric temperatures
rise to life-threatening levels. These warming feedback loops include such things as releases
of global warming gases from melting polar ice sheets and from frozen methane deposits
beneath the oceans, as well as the loss of polar ice causing the Earth to absorb more of the
sun’s heat energy. All of which will cause additional warming, which then results in
additional releases of global warming gases that will cause additional global temperature
rises in an unstoppable loop that will continue until the planet is warmer than it has been in
many millions of years (long before humans existed). Such rapid and uncontrollable warming of Earth’s atmosphere
could warm the planet by 4 to 5 degrees Celsius (7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) within the current century and perhaps eventually
lead to a planet that is 8 to 9 degrees Celsius (14 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was before humans started burning
fossil fuels in large quantities starting in the 19th century. Some might wonder, what’s the big deal if the planet is 4 to 5
degrees Celsius or even 8 to 9 degrees Celsius warmer than it has been as humans evolved on Earth? After all, many parts of
the planet routinely experience temperature swings of this magnitude on a daily or weekly basis. There are several ways that
rapid global warming on a planetary scale could threaten human survival. Warming
is not evenly distributed.
Some areas, including currently farmable land, will warm well in excess of the global
average, which would lead to desertification and crop failures. This would obviously
imperial humans due to massive food shortages. Oceans, another major source of food that
humans need to survive, are impacted by rising global temperatures, as higher ocean
temperatures lead to acidification of ocean water, which will eventually lead to massive die-
offs of sea life that provide much-needed food for humans. Water resources will completely
dry up in many arid parts of the world, making those areas uninhabitable. Dwindling food
and water resource wars between competing nations that could be catastrophic.
s will inevitably lead to

Humans can’t survive at wet-bulb temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees
Fahrenheit), even in the shade, as the human body loses its ability to cool itself off. Higher
global temperatures and the higher humidity levels that will occur with the higher
temperatures could make large parts of the Earth uninhabitable due to wet bulb
temperatures that are lethal. Would Runaway Global Warming Actually Lead to Human Extinction? It’s a very big
step go from runaway global warming to the extinction of all human beings on Earth. Humans possess the intellectual skills
necessary to design and build technologies that can help us adapt to climate change. We’re also able to move to places with
more hospitable climates. However, some scientists are concerned that humans will not have time to adapt to
the quick pace of runaway global warming and some of the impacts will be too harsh for us
to survive. If farmlands and oceans are no longer capable of providing food for humans,
where will we turn to obtain life-sustaining food? It is possible that humans could migrate towards the poles
and try to farm on land in those areas that is freed up from the ice. However, it is unclear if the currently frozen
areas in and around the polar regions will have topsoil suitable for farming. What about
freshwater fish? Unfortunately, freshwater lakes and rivers will also undergo acidification
that will likely wipe out most or all fish species that can provide humans nourishment. Our
only hope might be some sort of synthetic food that is created in factories using basic elements (a technology that is certainly
viable). There will be other
life-threatening factors that humans will face in a fast warming world. Massive fire
balls from methane releases will create havoc for humans. These fireballs will start
enormous forest fires driven by the warmer and in many places a more arid world, which
will cause turmoil for humans. A lack of freshwater in areas that undergo desertification
will make survival impossible in such areas. Wars over dwindling resources will be fought
out of desperation and could end in catastrophe. The stress of a warmer world will weaken
human immune systems. If industrial society collapses or is greatly reduced, healthcare and
medicines might become very limited, lowering life expectancy dramatically. Humans that
survive all the dangers associated with runaway global warming might succumb to
pandemics that will likely sweep the world as opportunistic pathogens take advantage of
weakened human systems and cause a large loss of life in the remaining human populations.
That outweighs other risks by a trillion times.
Ng ’19 [Yew-Kwang; May 2019; Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technology University,
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of the Advisory Board at the
Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. in Economics from Sydney University;
Global Policy, “Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective
Altruism,” vol. 10, no. 2, p. 258-266]

Catastrophic climate change

Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non‐
linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical thresholds and
tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev et al., 2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012;
IPCC 2014; Kareiva and Carranza, 2018; Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman, 2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016;
Van Aalst, 2006).7

A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could
cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p. 399). There are many avenues for positive feedback in
global warming, including:

 the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the reflection and
increases the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;
 the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more carbon; and
 higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the ocean floor,
producing runaway global warming.
Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall net positive feedback (Roe and
Baker, 2007). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p. 25) concludes, ‘The
world is currently completely
unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’.

The threat of sea‐level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely and
more imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For example, Sherwood and Huber
(2010) emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high environmental
wet‐bulb temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could … expose large fractions of
the [world] population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming,
‘the area of land rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p.
9555, making extinction much more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated
assessment models unreliably low.
While imminent extinction is very unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main point is that
we cannot rule it out. Annan and Hargreaves (2011, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper 95 per cent probability
limit for S [temperature increase] … to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C’. However, probabilities of 5 per cent,
0.5 per cent, 0.05 per cent or even 0.005 per cent of excessive warming and the resulting extinction
probabilities cannot be ruled out and are unacceptable. Even if there is only a 1 per cent
probability that there is a time bomb in the airplane, you probably want to change your flight.
Extinction of the whole world is more important to avoid by literally a trillion times.
Unchecked climate change causes extinction.
Jeff Master 21. Ph.D. is a former hurricane hunter and scientist for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as the co-founder of Weather Underground. He
writes about extreme weather and climate change for Yale Climate Connections. “How easily
the climate crisis can become global chaos” The Hill. 09-01-21.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/570284-how-easily-the-climate-crisis-can-
become-global-chaos?amp

After months of one extreme weather event after another, it's hard to imagine how climate
impacts could get any worse. Unfortunately, it could. Imagine a year - not far in the future - just a
couple years from now, where it all goes wrong: A strong El Niño event warms the equatorial Pacific,

bringing Earth's hottest January on record. Extreme drought grips Australia, the world's No. 3
exporter of wheat, bringing its most intense drought in history. A 58 percent decline in wheat
production results, as occurred after their 2002 drought. Global food prices spike. In April, record
rainfall hits Canada, the world's No. 2 wheat exporter. Canada's wheat harvest falls 14 percent, as occurred after extreme rains in 2010. Unrelenting
torrential rains hit the central U.S., delaying spring planting of crops and bringing near-record flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.
Fortunately, because of infrastructure bills passed in 2021 and 2022, which gave funds for flood preparedness, the damage is billions of dollars less than
from the great floods of 2011 and 1993. As summer arrives, the jet stream gets "stuck" in the type of resonant
pattern linked to human-caused climate change that has become more frequent in recent years. The
stuck jet stream brings cool air, relentless rain-bearing low-pressure systems and record rains to
the central United States. Production of corn falls 4 percent and wheat 25 percent , as occurred in 2017
after a similarly wet year. In the western U.S. and Canada, the stuck jet stream brings a record-strength dome of high

pressure, exacerbating their intense drought and bringing another year of hellacious wildfires
and choking smoke that leads to thousands of premature air pollution deaths. Severe drought ,
typical of an El Niño year, hits India and Southeast Asia, causing failure of the monsoon rains. In India, "Day Zero"

arrives for an additional 100 million people, as taps run dry from years of excessive groundwater pumping and a wasteful water supply system. Rice

yields fall 23 percent in India, the world's No. 1 rice exporter, as occurred in 2002. In the fall, another bonkers Atlantic hurricane season
unfolds as record-warm waters in the Caribbean fuel five major hurricanes, bucking the tendency of El Niño to suppress hurricanes. In mid-October, a
hurricane - a carbon copy of 2021's Hurricane Ida, except occurring during peak harvest season - trashes three of America's 15 largest ports, which lie
along the Lower Mississippi River and handle 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports to the world. Barge traffic on the Mississippi is crippled for months,
during the peak export period for U.S. grain. The extreme weather onslaught causes food prices to spike to
quadruple the levels of 2000. Food riots break out in urban areas across the Middle East, North
Africa and Latin America. The Euro weakens and the main European stock markets lose 10 percent of their value; U.S.
stock markets fall 5 percent. Civil war erupts in Nigeria, famine kills nearly a million people in
Bangladesh and Africa, and Mali becomes a failed state. Military tensions heighten between Russia and NATO;

nuclear-armed India and Pakistan fight a border skirmish over water rights. Even more dramatic
stock market falls ensue, and the global economy tumbles into a deep recession. This worst-case
scenario year - though unlikely to occur exactly this way - illustrates one of the greatest threats of climate change:

extreme droughts and floods hitting multiple major grain-producing "breadbaskets"

simultaneously. The scenario is similar to one outlined by insurance giant Lloyds of London in a "Food System Shock" report issued in 2015.
Lloyds gave uncomfortably high odds of such an event occurring - well over 0.5 percent per year, or more than an 18 percent chance over a 40-year
period. Given
the unprecedented weather extremes that have rocked the world recently, the odds
of a devastating food system shock are probably much higher. What's more, these odds are
steadily increasing as humans burn fossil fuels and pump more heat-trapping greenhouse
gases into the air. A warming planet provides more energy to power stronger storms, and more
energy to intensify droughts, heatwaves and wildfires when storms are not present. Earth's
oceans are heating at an accelerating rate, storing energy equivalent to an astonishing three to six Hiroshima-sized atom
bombs per second. That extra heat energy allows more water vapor to evaporate and power stronger and wetter storms - like Hurricane Ida, and the
catastrophic storms that hit Europe and China in July, costing over $25 billion each. Earth's extra heat energy also intensifies droughts and heatwaves,
like the one that brought Canada's all-time heat record in June: 121 degrees Fahrenheit in Lytton, British Columbia, a day before a wildfire burned the
town down. Global warming also intensified the 2010 Russian drought, which caused a doubling in global wheat prices, helping fuel the Arab Spring
protests that led to the deadly uprisings in seven nations and the overthrow of multiple governments. If
business-as-usual is allowed
to continue, a civilization-threatening climate catastrophe will occur. Mother Nature's primal fury of 2021 is
just a preview of what is coming. Global temperatures are currently about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees

Fahrenheit) warmer than pre-industrial levels, and this year may well be the coolest year of the
rest of our lives. Catastrophic extreme weather events will grow exponentially worse with 3
degrees Celsius of warming - the course we are currently on.

Prefer scientific consensus – now’s the last chance before countless

catastrophic impacts become irreversible – encompasses all other impacts,
making it try or die to avoid the disad
Åberg et al 10-5 (Anna Åberg, research analyst in the Environment and Society Programme of
Chatham House, formerly served as desk officer at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, MSc
Development Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science, BSc Business and
Economics, and Politics and Economics, Lund University; Antony Froggatt, deputy director and
senior research fellow in the Environment and Society Programme of Chatham House; and
Rebecca Peters, Queen Elizabeth II Academy Fellow in the Environment and Society Programme
of Chatham House, doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford with the UK Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office REACH Water Security programme, MSc Development
Economics, MSc Water Science and Policy, Marshall Scholar; “Raising climate ambition at
COP26,” Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London) Research Paper,
October 2021, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/2021-10-05-raising-
climate-ambition-at-cop26-aberg-et-al-pdf.pdf)
01

Introduction

COP26 is the most important climate summit since COP21 in Paris in 2015. Over the past year, the global politics of
climate change have shifted, with the election of President Joe Biden and the announcement
of China’s carbon neutrality target .

Addressing climate change is the defining challenge of our time. Around the globe – and across
the suite of UN organizations – there is widespread recognition of the urgency to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to prepare for a world that is, and will continue to be,
severely impacted by climate change.
The foundational treaty of the international climate change regime – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) – was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.1 Its signatories agreed to ‘achieve… stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’.2
The states that have ratified the UNFCCC meet annually at the ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to assess and review the
implementation of the convention.3 The COP has negotiated two separate treaties since the formation of the UNFCCC: the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997, and the Paris Agreement in 2015.4

The Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 parties at COP21 in 2015 and entered into force less than a year later.5 The goals of the
treaty are to keep the rise in the global average temperature to ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’, ideally 1.5°C; enhance
the ability to adapt to climate change and build resilience; and make ‘finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low
greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’.6 The agreement adopts a ‘bottom-up’ and non-standardized
approach, where parties themselves set their national emission reduction targets and communicate these to the UNFCCC in the
form of nationally determined contributions (NDCs).7

As things stand, the targets8 that were submitted in the run-up to COP21 are not sufficient, even if fully implemented, to limit global
warming to 2°C, much less 1.5°C.9 The Paris Agreement was designed, however, to generate increased ambition over time via two
components: a collective ‘global stocktake’ during which progress towards Paris Agreement goals is assessed based on country
reporting,10 and the ‘ratchet mechanism’, which encourages countries to communicate new or updated NDCs every five years, with
the expectation that ambition will increase over time.11 The results of the stocktake are scheduled to be released two years before
NDC revisions are made.12 This sequencing is designed to allow national plans to account for the global context of the climate
assessment. The first global stocktake is to be conducted between 2021 and 2023, and will be repeated every five years
thereafter.13 The results of the first stocktake are due to be published around COP28.

We really are out of time . We must act now to prevent further irreversible damage .
COP26 this November must mark that turning point .14 UN Secretary-General António Guterres, 16
September 2021

The 26th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UNFCCC is to be hosted by the UK, in partnership with Italy. After a
year-long delay, the conference is now scheduled to take place in Glasgow, Scotland, between 31 October and 12 November
2021.15 Organizing an in-person event during a pandemic presents a substantial challenge. The UK government is providing vaccines
to accredited delegations, but doses only started to be delivered at the beginning of September 2021 and restrictions, such as
quarantine requirements,16 pose further obstacles to participation.17 An alliance of 1,500 civil society organizations are among
those calling for a second postponement of the COP, citing concerns about a lack of plans to enable safe and inclusive participation
of delegates from, not least, the Global South.18 The UK government is, however, adamant that it will proceed with the conference
as planned.19

The pandemic has changed understandings of global risks, the interconnected nature of economies and the role of governments in
preparing for and responding to existential threats. This may provide impetus for accelerated climate action. The postponement of
COP26 itself has been of considerable significance. Over the past year, the global politics of climate change have shifted, with the
election of President Joe Biden and the announcement of China’s climate neutrality target being particularly important. Moreover,
the economic recovery packages that are being rolled out to counter the economic consequences of the pandemic present an
opportunity to accelerate the green transition.20 To date, however, the members of the G20 have prioritized investments in fossil
fuels above those in clean energy,21 and only 10 per cent of the global expenditure is estimated to have been allocated to projects
with a net positive effect on the environment.22

COP26 is the most important climate summit since COP21 in Paris, and it differs from earlier COPs in
several ways: it is the first test of the ambition-raising ratchet mechanism and marks a shift
from negotiation to implementation . An ambitious outcome at COP26 requires substantial
action to be taken before the summit – and outside the remits of the UNFCCC process – as well as at the actual
conference.

Human activity has already caused the global average temperature to rise by around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, and every
additional increase in warming raises the risks for people, communities and ecosystems. To avoid the most
catastrophic climate change impacts , it is essential world leaders make every effort to limit
warming to 1.5°C . Working group I of the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC shows it is still
possible to keep warming to this critical threshold, but that unprecedented action must be
taken now .23 As John Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, stated, ‘[t]his test is now as acute and as
existential as any previous one’.24

COP26 has a critical role in getting the world on track for a 1.5°C pathway , and in supporting those
most affected by climate change impacts. It also constitutes a key test for the credibility of the Paris
Agreement and the UNFCCC process overall . But what can and should the Glasgow summit achieve more
specifically? The objective of this paper is to discuss what a positive outcome at COP26 would entail, with the dual aims of
encouraging increased ambition and contributing to an informed public debate. The main argument put forth is that substantial
progress must be made in three main areas, namely on increasing the ambition of NDCs; enhancing support to and addressing
concerns of climate-vulnerable developing countries; and advancing the Paris Rulebook to help operationalize the Paris Agreement.

COP26 is undoubtedly hugely significant and national government pledges in the run-up to Glasgow will contribute to shaping the
level of future GHG emissions. However, the
event is not only critical in terms of reaching an ambitious
outcome on climate, it is also an important opportunity to judge the level of confidence in the
international process and the UNFCCC.
02

Increasing the ambition of the NDCs

A key element of COP26 will be the level of ambition of the revised NDCs put forward by
governments to the UNFCCC and the extent to which these keep the 1.5°C global warming
target agreed in Paris within reach.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), greenhouse gases (GHGs) in 2019 totalled 52.4 gigatonnes of CO₂
equivalent (GtCO₂e)25 of which the majority was CO₂ (38 Gt), then methane (9.8 Gt), nitrous oxide (2.8 Gt) and F-gases (1.7 Gt).26
The same year, GHG emissions were approximately 59 per cent higher than in 1990 and 44 per cent higher than in 2000.The six
largest emitters – together accounting for 62 per cent of the global total – were China (26.7 per cent), the US (13 per cent), the EU (8
per cent), India (7 per cent), Russia (5 per cent) and Japan (3 per cent) (see Figure 1).27

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
According to UNEP, the implementation of the first round of NDCs would result in an average global temperature increase of 3°C
above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with further warming taking place thereafter. If these NDC’s were fully
implemented, emission levels are expected to be in the range of 56 GtCO2e (with unconditional NDCs) to 53 GtCO₂e (with
conditional NDCs) by 2030.28 To align with a 2°C pathway, the ambition of the second round of NDCs would need to triple relative to
the original targets, leading to emissions levels of around 41 GtCO₂e in 2030. Alignment with the 1.5°C target would require a
fivefold increase in ambition, leading to emission levels around 25 CO₂e in 2030 (see Figure 2).29

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The Paris Agreement states that parties shall communicate an NDC every five years,30 and that each submission shall constitute a
progression in terms of ambition.31 Parties conveyed their first round of targets prior to COP21, and were due to submit new or
updated plans in 2020.32 COP26, originally scheduled for November 2020, would then take stock of the collective level of ambition
of these plans vis-à-vis the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. The postponement of the COP by one year has in practice
(albeit not formally) extended the deadline for submitting NDCs to ‘ahead of COP26’.

Where do we stand?

The delay of COP26 has given countries more time to put forward NDCs and longer-term decarbonization targets. This effort gained
significant traction when China pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions before 2030, during the general
debate of the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September 2020.33 Then, in November 2020, the UK submitted
its NDC, pledging a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 (based on 1990 levels)34 and later added a 2035 target of 78 per
cent.35 The EU has, moreover, put forward a 55 per cent reduction target relative to 1990 levels,36 with some countries within the
bloc going even further, including Germany, which agreed on a 65 per cent reduction target.37

Biden has fundamentally changed the US’s position on climate change,

The election of President
leading to, among other things, the country re-joining the Paris Agreement .38 At a specially convened
Leaders Summit on Climate – hosted by the US – the Biden administration presented an NDC with an emission

reduction target of 50 –52 per cent 39 (based on 2005 levels, which is equivalent to 40–43 per cent below 1990
levels40). During the summit, countries including Canada, Japan and others pledged more ambitious NDC targets.41

While there is more pressure on governments to act on climate change, due to its increasingly devastating impacts, there are also
more opportunities for carbon mitigation through available alternative technologies and systems, as well as falling renewable energy
costs (see Box 2).
Table 1 details the NDC targets put forward by G20 countries prior to COP21 in Paris and the extent to which these have since been
revised. The updated NDCs have been assessed by the independent body, Climate Action Tracker, which has analysed to what extent
the NDCs align with the 1.5°C pathway. The analysis also looks at domestic policies and actions, which are important as they provide
an indication of whether governments are following through on their promises.

[TABLE 1 OMITTED]
As of September 2021, 85 countries and the EU27 had submitted new or updated NDCs, covering around half of global GHG
emissions. Some parties, like China and Japan, have proposed new targets but not yet submitted them formally while around 70
parties – including G20 countries like India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – have neither proposed nor communicated a revised NDC
target. Several parties have, moreover, submitted new NDCs without increasing ambition. These include Australia, Brazil, Indonesia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam.42 In some of these cases, adjustments in baselines mean that
ambition has de facto decreased (Brazil and Mexico).43 Analysis published by Climate Action Tracker in September 2021 shows that
the NDC updates only narrow the gap to 1.5°C by, at best, 15 per cent (4 GtCO₂e). This leaves a large gap of 20–23 GtCO₂e.44

Similar analysis from the UN underscores the need for further NDC enhancements.45 If all current NDCs are implemented, total GHG
emissions (not including emissions associated with land use) in 2030 are projected to be 16.3 per cent higher than in 2010, and 5 per
cent higher than in 2019. The emissions of the parties that have submitted new or updated NDCs are, however, expected to fall by
around 12 per cent by the end of the decade, compared to 2010 levels. The UN report also highlights the importance of providing
support to developing countries, as many of these have submitted NDCs that are – at least in part – conditional on the receipt of
additional financial resources, capacity-building support, and technology transfer, among other things. If such support is
forthcoming, global emissions could peak before 2030, with emission levels at the end of this decade being 1.4 per cent lower than
in 2019. However, even the full implementation of both the unconditional and conditional elements of the NDCs would lead to an
overshoot of the targets of the Paris Agreement – as alignment with 1.5°C and 2°C require cuts of 45 per cent and 25 per cent,
respectively, by 2030 (relative to 2010 levels).46

A large number of countries are also making more long-term net zero emissions or carbon neutrality pledges. As of September 2021,
just over 130 countries had made such commitments, but not all of them have formally presented them to the UNFCCC.47 Examples
include large economies like China, Japan, Brazil, the US, South Africa, South Korea, and the EU, as well as climate-vulnerable
developing countries like the Marshall Islands, Barbados, Kiribati and Bangladesh.48 Climate
Action Tracker estimates
that if these long-term targets – and the NDCs – are fully implemented, global warming could be
limited to 2°C.49 Most of the net zero pledges are, however, formulated in vague terms that are not consistent with good
practice. The long-term targets are, moreover, only credible if they are backed up by ambitious and robust 2030 NDCs,50 given that
substantial cuts in emissions must occur this decade. An additional concern that has been raised when it comes to net zero pledges
is that they may encourage reliance on negative emissions technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS),
which have still to be tested at scale to assess land requirement, efficiency and economic viability.51

[BOX 1 OMITTED]
The challenge of closing the gap

Bridging the gap between current NDCs and targets that would keep warming to 1.5°C is a
defining challenge for governments ahead of COP26 . As mentioned, UNEP estimates that the ambition of 2030
targets would need to be enhanced fivefold vis-à-vis pledges made in 2015 to align with a 1.5°C pathway.53 Several large emitters –
including the US and the EU – have now submitted their new or updated NDCs. According to Climate Action Tracker, the UK’s target
is considered to be compatible with a 1.5°C pathway, while those of the US, EU, Japan and Canada are classified as ‘almost
sufficient’.54

It is critical that all countries that have not yet submitted a new or updated NDC do so, and that these pledges are aligned with 1.5°C.
It is equally important that countries that have submitted unambitious NDCs revisit their targets. The Paris Agreement states that
parties may revise existing NDCs at any time, if the purpose is to enhance ambition.55 The G20 countries have a particularly
important role to play. In July 2021, the Italian G20 presidency hosted the first ever G20 Climate and Energy Ministerial meeting. In
the final communique the countries in the G20 stated that they ‘intend to update or communicate ambitious NDCs by COP26’.56
The importance of action from all members of the G20 is clear, as they collectively account for 80 per cent of global emissions and as
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, ‘there is no pathway to this [1.5°C] goal without the leadership of the G20’.57

With only a few weeks to go it is, however, unlikely that the 20–23 GtCO ₂e gap in targets will be
closed by COP26. At the UK-hosted COP26 ministerial in July, a number of ministers stressed that parties would need to
respond to any gap remaining by the Glasgow conference. Some suggested that such a response could include a ‘clear political
commitment’ to keep 1.5°C within reach, a recognition of the gap, and a plan to bridge it. More specific proposals of actions that
could be taken, as part of the response, to keep the 1.5°C pathway alive were also discussed. Suggestions included, but were not
limited to, encouraging countries whose NDCs are not consistent with 1.5°C to bring their 2030 targets in line before 2025 (when the
third round of NDCs are due); calling for parties to submit concrete long-term strategies for reaching net zero; and/or sending clear
signals to markets through actions like phasing out unabated coal, carbon pricing, fossil fuel subsidy reform, nature-based solutions,
and decarbonizing transport.58

Achieving a positive COP26 outcome

The ultimate benchmark for a high ambition outcome at COP26 is whether the new or updated
NDCs are ambitious enough to align with a 1.5°C pathway . For many communities and ecosystems, the
threat of different climate impacts between 1.5 °C and 2° C – not to mention 3°C, 4°C or 5°C – is
existential . Each increment of warming is anticipated to drive increasingly devastating and
costly impacts , including extreme heatwaves , rising sea levels , biod iversity loss , reductions in
crop yields , and widespread ecosystems damage including to coral reefs and fisheries .59

Keeping the goal of 1.5°C within reach will require substantial action this decade. Long-term targets to achieve net
zero emissions or carbon neutrality have the potential to be powerful drivers of
decarbonization but need to be supported by ambitious NDCs as well as concrete policies and
sufficient investment .
Should we reach COP26 without sufficient ambition on NDCs, parties would need to present a plan for how ambition will be raised in
the early 2020s. This could include a COP decision or a political statement underscoring the need to keep warming to 1.5°C and
inviting parties to revisit their NDCs earlier than the Paris timetable dictates (for instance in 2023 instead of 2025).60 To
support
more ambitious action, countries should look to expand international collaboration and
accelerate decarbonization in key sectors. At COP26, parties can help boost the credibility of
their pledges by showcasing policies , measures and sector initiatives that will accelerate
decarbonization, including on the phase out of unabated coal and the increased use of electric
vehicles (see Box 3).

[BOX 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In the run-up to COP26, the UK government is mobilizing its counterparts and non-state actors to drive accelerated action on
phasing out the use of unabated coal,65 accelerating the deployment of electric vehicles,66 protecting and restoring nature (nature-
based solutions67), and aligning financial flows with the goals of the Paris Agreement.68 The role of the private sector is crucial in
the transition to net zero economies and is recognized within the framework of the UNFCCC, as they can deliver funding, innovation
and technology deployment at a pace and scale beyond that of most governments (see Box 1). It is hoped that some of these
initiatives will lead to plurilateral agreements at or ahead of COP26, which could enhance the credibility of mitigation pledges and
help keep the 1.5°C target within reach. Being able to showcase a package consisting of ambitious NDCs ,
plurilateral deals, and national policies at COP26 could generate positive momentum and
create a sense of inevitability around the transition to net zero societies.

[BOX 3 OMITTED]
03

Support to climate-vulnerable developing countries

Increased action on climate finance , adaptation, and loss and damage is critical for supporting climate-
vulnerable developing countries , strengthening trust and raising ambition on mitigation .
The year 2020 was one of the warmest on record.80 As COVID-19 ravaged the world, extreme weather events continued to cause
severe devastation. In Bangladesh, torrential rains submerged a quarter of the country,81 resulting in hundreds of deaths, mass
displacement and damage to more than a million homes.82 Record-breaking floods in Sudan83 and Uganda84 also displaced
hundreds of thousands, while super cyclone Amphan raged across South Asia.85 Extreme weather events were also a defining
feature of the summer of 2021.

An unprecedented heatwave may have killed almost 500 people in British Columbia,86 as well as a billion marine animals along the
Canadian coastline.87 In the Chinese province of Henan people drowned in the subway after a year’s worth of rain fell in just three
days.88 Germany and Belgium also experienced death and destruction as a result of severe flooding,89 while villages in Greece
burned.90

The impacts of climate change are striking even harder than many anticipated,91 and as temperatures continue to rise extreme
weather events are increasing in both frequency and intensity. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is key to avoiding the most
catastrophic events, but substantial measures must also be undertaken to adapt to climate change impacts and build resilience. As
the summer of 2021 shows, no country is spared. It is, however, those who have emitted the least that are most at risk,92 and in
many countries that are disproportionately affected by climate change – such as the least developed countries (LDCs)93 – financial
constraints impede their ability to invest in adaptation, build resilience and deal with loss and damage.94 COVID-19 has aggravated
this challenge: while industrialized countries have implemented unprecedented stimulus measures to support their economies – and
vaccinated large parts of their populations – many developing countries remain in the midst of a health and economic catastrophe.

Scaled up action on climate finance , adaptation and loss and damage are – in addition to increased
ambition on mitigation – key priorities for climate-vulnerable nations ahead of COP26. Raised
ambition and concrete delivery in these areas are critical for supporting those at the frontline
of climate change, key to building trust , and could encourage some parties to raise the ambition
of their NDC pledges . The implementation of many NDCs is , in addition, at least partly conditional
upon receiving increased levels of finance , as well as other types of support.95
Honouring the $100 billion goal

In 2009, developed countries committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries.96 This pledge was subsequently formalized in the Cancun Agreements in 201097 and reaffirmed in the Paris
Agreement in 2015. The resources provided were to be ‘new and additional’98 and come from a variety of public and private
sources.99 The $100 billion goal is a core element of the bargain underpinning the Paris Agreement.100 While achieving the
mitigation and adaptation goals of the agreement will require trillions of dollars in investment – of which most will need to come
from the private sector – the delivery of the $100 billion is critical to building trust between developed and developing countries,101
and is important for raising ambition on mitigation.102

The OECD estimates that $79.6 billion was mobilized in 2019, which is the most recent year for which official figures are
available.103 In 2018, the figure was $78.9 billion, and in 2017 it was $71.2 billion.104 Though the verified figures for 2020 will not
be available until 2022, it is clear the target was missed.105

Developed countries have, moreover, not yet been able to show that the pledge will be honoured in 2021, nor demonstrate
conclusively how it will be met in the 2022–24 period.106

The pledge by developed nations to mobilize $100 billion to developing nations by 2020 is a commitment made in the UNFCCC
process more than a decade ago. It’s time to deliver. How can we expect nations to make more ambitious climate
commitments for tomorrow if today’s have not yet been met?107

Patricia Espinosa, 23 July 2021

How the goal is achieved matters. Only around one-fifth of bilateral climate finance is allocated to the LDCs,108 and locally led
projects receive low priority.109 There are also concerns related to overreporting and lack of additionality. Oxfam estimates, for
instance, that 80 per cent of public climate finance provided over the 2017–18 period took the form of loans or other non-grant
instruments, and that the actual grant equivalent only accounted for around half of the total amount of finance reported.110
Furthermore, the Center for Global Development has found that almost half of the climate finance reported between 2009 and 2019
cannot be considered ‘new and additional’.111 There is, finally, an urgent need to close the adaptation finance gap (see next
section),112 and facilitate access to finance.113
It is widely recognized that honouring the $100 billion goal is a prerequisite for success at
COP26 .114 The hitherto failure of developed countries to provide clarity on the issue is creating mistrust between countries,115
with the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (who is also an adviser to the climate-vulnerable
countries) conveying that, ‘if the money is not delivered before November, then there is little point in climate-vulnerable nations
showing up in Glasgow to do business with governments that break their promises’.116 The chair of the LDC Group has also made it
clear that, ‘[t]here will be no COP26 deal without a finance deal’. 117

The G7 countries play a critical role in mobilizing the $100 billion,118 and there was a hope that G7 leaders would increase their
bilateral commitments substantially – and provide clarity on the $100 billion119 – when they convened in Cornwall in June 2021.
Some new pledges were made. Canada, for instance, committed to doubling its climate finance through to 2025 (to CAD $5.3
billion), and Germany pledged to increase its annual commitments from €4 billion to €6 billion by 2025 at the latest.120 The G7
members collectively also committed to ‘each increase and improve’ their public climate finance contributions, and announced they
would develop a new international initiative – ‘Build Back Better for the World’121 – the details of which have yet to be fleshed out.
However, many developing country officials – and many observers worldwide – expressed disappointment with the summit
outcome, with the climate minister of Pakistan describing the G7 commitments as ‘peanuts’.122

Several announcements on climate finance were also made during the 76th Session of the UNGA in September 2021. Most
importantly, President Joe Biden pledged to double US climate finance (again) from the previously
committed $5.7 billion to $11.4 billion per year by 2024. Actual delivery is, however,
contingent on congressional approval .123 The EU – which already contributes around $25 billion
in climate finance per year – also stepped up , announcing an additional €4 billion until 2027,124 while Italian Prime
Minister Mario Draghi conveyed that Italy would shortly be announcing a new climate finance commitment.125 Though the US

pledge in particular has been described as a critical step forward that ‘puts the $100 billion
within reach’ ,126 more will need to be done.127

$100 billion is a bare minimum. But the agreement has not been kept. A clear plan to fulfil this pledge is not
just about the economics of climate change ; it is about establishing trust in the
multilateral system .128
António Guterres, 9 July 2021

AND, expectations of resource conflict alone makes nuclear war inevitable in

the short term
Dr. Michael T. Klare 20, Five Colleges Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College, Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute, BA and MA from
Columbia University, Member of the Board of Director at the Arms Control Association, Defense
Correspondent for The Nation, “How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood of Nuclear
War”, The Nation, 1/13/2020, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-defense-
climate-change/

Climbing world temperatures and rising sea levels will diminish the supply of food and water in many
resource-deprived areas , increasing the risk of widespread starvation , social unrest , and
human flight . Global corn production , for example, is projected to fall by as much as 14 percent in a 2°C
warmer world, according to research cited in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Food scarcity and crop failures risk pushing hundreds of millions of people into overcrowded
cities , where the likelihood of pandemics , ethnic strife , and severe storm damage is bound to
increase. All of this will impose an immense burden on human institutions . Some states may
collapse or break up into a collection of warring chiefdoms —all fighting over sources of water and
other vital resources.

A similar momentum is now evident in the emerging nuclear arms race , with all three major powers—
China, Russia, and the U nited S tates—rushing to deploy a host of new munitions . This dangerous
process commenced a decade ago, when Russian and Chinese leaders sought improvements to their nuclear arsenals and President
Barack Obama, in order to secure Senate approval of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010, agreed to initial funding for
the modernization of all three legs of America’s strategic triad, which encompasses submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles,
and bombers. (New START, which mandated significant reductions in US and Russian arsenals, will expire in February 2021 unless
renewed by the two countries.) Although Obama initiated the modernization of the nuclear triad, the Trump administration has
sought funds to proceed with their full-scale production, at an estimated initial installment of $500 billion over 10 years.

Even during the initial modernization program of the Obama era, Russian and Chinese leaders were sufficiently alarmed to hasten
their own nuclear acquisitions. Both countries were already in the process of modernizing their stockpiles—Russia to replace Cold
War–era systems that had become unreliable, China to provide its relatively small arsenal with enhanced capabilities. Trump’s
decision to acquire a whole new suite of ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and bombers has added momentum to these efforts.
And with all three major powers upgrading their arsenals, the other nuclear-weapon states—led by India, Pakistan, and North Korea
—have been expanding their stockpiles as well. Moreover, with Trump’s recent decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, all major powers are developing missile delivery systems for a regional nuclear war such as
might erupt in Europe , South Asia , or the western Pacific .

It’s the only existential risk

Samuel Miller-McDonald 19, PhD Candidate in Geography and the Environment at the University
of Oxford, “Deathly Salvation”, The Trouble, 1/4/2019,
https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2019/1/4/deathly-salvation
A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a
nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear
winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science. There’s
no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate
agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476
nuclear devices.
An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut
the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy
infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive.

In the near term, emissions would almost certainly rise as militaries are some of the world’s largest emitters. Given what we know of
human history, though, conflict may be the only way to build the mass social cohesion necessary for undertaking the kind of huge,
collective action needed for global sequestration and energy transition. Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear exchange could
serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil
fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one
that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to
block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear
What we do know is that

one. Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an
inevitable extinction event; six degrees of warming is.
Climate change destroys the world.
Specktor 19 [Brandon writes about the science of everyday life for Live Science, and
previously for Reader's Digest magazine, where he served as an editor for five years] 6-4-2019,
"Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper
Claims," livescience, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-
2050.html JW

**Cites and talks about the Spratt and Dunlop study

The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate
models — like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature
increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk — fail to account for
the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately
predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far worse than any models can fathom.

How the world ends

What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide
one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of
scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global
temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill
many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges
into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions.

"Thirty-five
percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject
to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the
authors hypothesized.

Meanwhile, droughts,floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's
land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs,
the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets . The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes,
destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees.

This mass movement of refugees

— coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and
water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States.
Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely.

The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global
civilization as we know it."

Climate change causes extinction

 Turns: war
 Disease
 Coop
 Environment

David Spratt and Ian T. Dunlop ’19, May. Research Director for Breakthrough National
Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne; member of the Club of Rome. Formerly an
international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association,
chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and chair of the Australian
Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading 1998-2000, “Existential climate-related
security risk: A scenario approach”, Breakthrough Policy Paper,
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

Even for2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and In high-end scenarios, the scale of
destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an
end. 21 National security consequences: For pragmatic reasons associated with providing only a sketch of this scenario, we take
the conclusion of the Age of Consequences ‘Severe’ 3°C scenario developed by a group of senior US national-security figures in 2007
as appropriate for our scenario too: Massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive
nonlinear societal events. In this scenario, nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of
change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations
will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration
and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities
around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has
the potential to challenge regional and even national identities . Armed conflict between nations
over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social
consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate
change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature’. (emphasis added)

Climate change causes extinction

Beard 21 --- S.J.Beard et al, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge,
United Kingdom, “Assessing climate change’s contribution to global catastrophic risk”, Futures
Volume 127, March 2021,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328720301646?
casa_token=by8gGKumaf0AAAAA:xT_EyVIl562OPSIjbbfew8mdQsUCUq7tOJ7mF9HGjwOsZ8M4
mfRkXkVIU1r7xYpO1ghAEKK2

While most of the impacts of climate change so far have fallen within the range of what was experienced during
the Holocene, the rate of change is faster than in the Holocene and we are now beginning to see climate
change push beyond these boundaries. In the latest edition of the planetary boundaries’ framework, climate change
is placed in the zone of increasing risk, implying that while this boundary has been breached, there remains some
potential for normal functioning and recovery (Steffen et al., 2015). It thus lies between what the
authors identify as the ‘safe zone’ and other ‘high risk’ transgressions, such as disruption to the
biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and loss of biosphere integrity.

As part of their discussion of BRIHN Baum and Handoh (2014) note that climate
change is the planetary boundary
for which the risk to humanity has received most meaningful consideration and they suggest that this
attention is deserved. Yet little research attention has been paid to climate change’s extreme or catastrophic effects. Kareiva and
Carranza (2018) argue that, despite currently falling outside of the area of high risk, climate
change has the clear
potential to push humanity across a threshold of irreversible loss by “changing major ocean
circulation patterns, causing massive sea-level rise, and increasing the frequency and severity of
extreme events… that displace people, and ruin economies .” Even if humanity was resilient to each
of these individual impacts, a global catastrophe could occur if these impacts were to occur rapidly and
simultaneously.
One scenario that has received comparatively more attention is that of the global climate crossing a tipping point that
would trigger environmental feedback loops (such as declining albedo from melting ice or the release of methane
from clathrates) and cascading effects (such a shifting rainfall patterns that trigger desertification and soil erosion). After
this point, anthropogenic activity may cease to be the main driver of climate change, making it
accelerate and become harder to stop (King et al., 2015).

Other scenarios can be discerned from the numerous historical

cases in which the modest, usually regional, climatic
changes experienced during the Holocene have been implicated in the collapse of previous societies,
including the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku, the Akkadians, the Western Roman Empire, the lowland Maya, and dozens of others (Diamond,
2005, Fagan, 2008). These provide a precedent for how a changing climate can trigger or contribute to
societal breakdown. At present, our understanding of this phenomena is limited, and the IPCC has labelled its findings as
“low confidence” due to a lack of understanding of cause and effect and restrictions in historical data (Klein et al., 2014). Further
study and cooperation between archaeologists, historians, climate scientists and global catastrophic risk scholars could overcome
some of these limitations by identifying how the impacts of climate change translate into social transformation and collapse, and
hence what the impacts of more rapid and extreme climatic changes might be. There is also the potential for larger studies into how
global climate variations have coincided with collapse and violence at the regional level (Zhang, Chiyung, Chusheng, Yuanqing, &
Fung, 2005; Zhang et al., 2006). However, these need to be interpreted and generalized with care given the differences between
pre-industrial and modern societies.

Societies also have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate change induced collapses (McAnany
and Yoffee, 2009). However, there are two reasons to be sceptical that such resilience can be easily
extrapolated into the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene, with well-functioning, resilient
ecosystems, has greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic climate change is more rapid,
pervasive, global, and severe. Large-scale states did not emerge until the onset of the Holocene (Richerson, Boyd, &
Bettinger, 2001), and societies have since remained in a surprisingly narrow climatic niche of roughly 15 mean annual average
temperature (Xu, Kohler, Lenton, Svenning, & Scheffer, 2020). A return to agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyles could thus have
more devastating and long-lasting effects in a world of rapid climate change and ecological disruption (Gowdy, 2020).7 Second,
modern human societies may have developed hidden fragilities that amplify the shocks posed by
climate change (Mannheim 2020) and the complex, tightly-coupled and interdependent nature of our
socio-economic systems makes it more likely that the failure of a few key states or industries
due to climate change could cascade into a global collapse (Kemp, 2019).
A third set of plausible scenarios stem from climate change’s broader environmental impacts. Apart from being a planetary
boundary of its own, Steffen et al. (2015) point out that climate change is intimately connected with other planetary boundaries (see
Table 1). Climate change is thus identified by the authors as one of two ‘core' boundaries with the potential “to drive the Earth
system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.” This transformative potential was elaborated on
in subsequent work exploring how the world could be pushed towards a ‘Hothouse Earth’ state, even with anthropogenic
temperature rises as low as 2 °C (Steffen et al., 2018).

The connection between climate change and biosphere integrity (the survival of complex adaptive
ecosystems supporting diverse forms of life) is particularly strong. The IPCC is highly confident that
climate change is adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to desertification and
land degradation in many areas and changing the range, abundance and seasonality of many plant and animal species
(Arneth et al., 2019). Similarly, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has
reported that climate change is restricting the range of nearly half the world’s threatened mammal species and a quarter of
threatened birds, with marine, coastal, and arctic ecosystems worst affected (Diaz et al., 2019). According to one estimate,
climate change could cause 15–37 % of all species to become ‘committed to extinction’ by mid-
century (Thomas et al., 2004).
Warming causes extinction
Ramanathan et al. 17 [Veerabhadran Ramanathan is Victor Alderson Professor of Applied
Ocean Sciences and director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Dr. William Collins is an internationally
recognized expert in climate modeling and climate change science. He is the Director of the
Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division (CESD) for the Earth and Environmental Sciences Area
(EESA) at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Prof. Dr Mark Lawrence, Ph.D. is
scientific director at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, Örjan
Gustafsson is a Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Analytic Chemistry at
Stockholm University, Shichang Kang is Professor, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and
Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS); CAS Center for Excellence in
Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, and Molina, M.J., Zaelke, D., Borgford-Parnell, N., Xu, Y., Alex, K.,
Auffhammer, M., Bledsoe, P., Croes, B., Forman, F., Haines, A., Harnish, R., Jacobson, M.Z.,
Lawrence, M., Leloup, D., Lenton, T., Morehouse, T., Munk, W., Picolotti, R., Prather, K., Raga,
G., Rignot, E., Shindell, D., Singh, A.K., Steiner, A., Thiemens, M., Titley, D.W., Tucker, M.E.,
Tripathi, S., & Victor, D., authors come from the following 9 countries - US, Switzerland, Sweden,
UK, China, Germany, Australia, Mexico, India, “Well Under 2 Degrees Celsius: Fast Action Policies
to Protect People and the Planet from Extreme Climate Change,” Report of the Committee to
Prevent Extreme Climate Change, September 2017,
http://www.igsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Well-Under-2-Degrees-Celsius-Report-
2017.pdf] TDI

Climate change is becoming an existential threat with warming in excess of 2°C within the
next three decades and 4°C to 6°C within the next several decades. Warming of such
magnitudes will expose as many as 75% of the world’s population to deadly heat stress in
addition to disrupting the climate and weather worldwide. Climate change is an urgent
problem requiring urgent solutions. This paper lays out urgent and practical solutions that are ready for
implementation now, will deliver benefits in the next few critical decades , and places the world on a path
to achieving the longterm targets of the Paris Agreement and near-term sustainable development goals. The approach consists of four building blocks
and 3 levers to implement ten scalable solutions described in this report by a team of climate scientists, policy makers, social and behavioral scientists,
political scientists, legal experts, diplomats, and military experts from around the world. These solutions will enable society to decarbonize the global
energy system by 2050 through efficiency and renewables, drastically reduce short-lived climate pollutants, and stabilize the climate well below 2°C
both in the near term (before 2050) and in the long term (post 2050). It will also reduce premature mortalities by tens of millions by 2050. As an
insurance against policy lapses, mitigation delays and faster than projected climate changes, the solutions include an Atmospheric Carbon Extraction
lever to remove CO2 from the air. The amount of CO2 that must be removed ranges from negligible, if the emissions of CO2 from the energy system
and SLCPs start to decrease by 2020 and carbon neutrality is achieved by 2050, to a staggering one trillion tons if the carbon lever is not pulled and
emissions of climate pollutants continue to increase until 2030.

There are numerous living laboratories including 53 cities, many universities around the world, the state of California, and the nation of Sweden, who
have embarked on a carbon neutral pathway. These laboratories have already created 8 million jobs in the clean energy industry; they have also shown

that emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants can be decoupled from economic growth.
Another favorable sign is that growth rates of worldwide carbon emissions have reduced from 2.9% per

year during the first decade of this century to 1.3% from 2011 to 2014 and near zero growth
rates during the last few years. The carbon emission curve is bending, but we have a long way
to go and very little time for achieving carbon neutrality . We need institutions and enterprises that can accelerate this
bending by scaling-up the solutions that are being proven in the living laboratories. We have less than a decade to put these solutions in place around
the world to preserve nature and our quality of life for generations to come. The time is now.
The Paris Agreement is an historic achievement. For the first time, effectively all nations have committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and
taking other actions to limit global temperature change. Specifically, 197 nations agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well
below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” and achieve carbon
neutrality in the second half of this century.

The climate has already warmed by 1°C. The problem is running ahead of us, and under
current trends we will likely reach 1.5°C in the next fifteen years and surpass the 2°C guardrail
by mid-century with a 50% probability of reaching 4°C by end of century . Warming in excess of 3°C is likely
to be a global catastrophe for three major reasons:

• Warming in the range of 3°C to 5°C is suggested as the threshold for several tipping points in
the physical and geochemical systems; a warming of about 3°C has a probability of over 40%
to cross over multiple tipping points, while a warming close to 5°C increases it to nearly 90%,
compared with a baseline warming of less than 1.5°C, which has only just over a 10%
probability of exceeding any tipping point.

• Health effects of such warming are emerging as a major if not dominant source of concern.
Warming of 4°C or more will expose more than 70% of the population, i.e. about 7 billion by
the end of the century, to deadly heat stress and expose about 2.4 billion to vector borne
diseases such as Dengue, Chikengunya, and Zika virus among others . Ecologists and paleontologists have
proposed that warming in excess of 3°C, accompanied by increased acidity of the oceans by the buildup of CO2 , can become a major causal factor for
exposing more than 50% of all species to extinction. 20% of species are in danger of extinction now due to population, habitat destruction, and climate
change.

The good news is that there may still be time to avert such catastrophic changes. The Paris Agreement and
supporting climate policies must be strengthened substantially within the next five years to
bend the emissions curve down faster, stabilize climate, and prevent catastrophic warming. To
the extent those efforts fall short, societies and ecosystems will be forced to contend with substantial needs for

adaptation—a burden that will fall disproportionately on the poorest three billion who are
least responsible for causing the climate change problem.
Here we propose a policy roadmap with a realistic and reasonable chance of limiting global temperature to safe levels and preventing unmanageable
climate change—an outline of specific science-based policy pathways that serve as the building blocks for a three-lever strategy that could limit
warming to well under 2°C. The projections and the emission pathways proposed in this summary are based on a combination of published
recommendations and new model simulations conducted by the authors of this study (see Figure 2). We have framed the plan in terms of four building
blocks and three levers, which are implemented through 10 solutions. The first building block would be fully implementing the nationally determined
mitigation pledges under the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In addition, several sister agreements
that provide targeted and efficient mitigation must be strengthened. Sister agreements include the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to
phase down HFCs, efforts to address aviation emissions through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), maritime black carbon emissions
through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and the commitment by the eight countries of the Arctic Council to reduce black carbon
emissions by up to 33%. There are many other complementary processes that have drawn attention to specific actions on climate change, such as the
Group of 20 (G20), which has emphasized reform of fossil fuel subsidies, and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). HFC measures, for example,
can avoid as much as 0.5°C of warming by 2100 through the mandatory global phasedown of HFC refrigerants within the next few decades, and
substantially more through parallel efforts to improve energy efficiency of air conditioners and other cooling equipment potentially doubling this
climate benefit.

For the second building block, numerous subnational and city scale climate action plans have to be scaled up. One prominent example is California’s
Under 2 Coalition signed by over 177 jurisdictions from 37 countries in six continents covering a third of world economy. The goal of this Memorandum
of Understanding is to catalyze efforts in many jurisdictions that are comparable with California’s target of 40% reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030
and 80% reductions by 2050—emission cuts that, if achieved globally, would be consistent with stopping warming at about 2°C above pre-industrial
levels. Another prominent example is the climate action plans by over 52 cities and 65 businesses around the world aiming to cut emissions by 30% by
2030 and 80% to 100% by 2050. There are concerns that the carbon neutral goal will hinder economic progress; however, real world examples from
California and Sweden since 2005 offer evidence that economic growth can be decoupled from carbon emissions and the data for CO2 emissions and
GDP reveal that growth in fact prospers with a green economy.
The third building block consists of two levers that we need to pull as hard as we can: one for drastically reducing emissions of short-lived climate
pollutants (SLCPs) beginning now and completing by 2030, and the other for decarbonizing the global energy system by 2050 through efficiency and
renewables. Pulling both levers simultaneously can keep global temperature rise below 2°C through the end of the century. If we bend the CO2
emissions curve through decarbonization of the energy system such that global emissions peak in 2020 and decrease steadily thereafter until reaching
zero in 2050, there is less than a 20% probability of exceeding 2°C. This call for bending the CO2 curve by 2020 is one key way in which this report’s
proposal differs from the Paris Agreement and it is perhaps the most difficult task of all those envisioned here. Many cities and jurisdictions are already
on this pathway, thus demonstrating its scalability. Achieving carbon neutrality and reducing emissions of SLCPs would also drastically reduce air
pollution globally, including all major cities, thus saving millions of lives and over 100 million tons of crops lost to air pollution each year. In addition,
these steps would provide clean energy access to the world’s poorest three billion who are still forced to resort to 18th century technologies to meet
basic needs such as cooking. For the fourth and the final building block, we are adding a third lever, ACE (Atmospheric Carbon Extraction, also known as
Carbon Dioxide Removal, or “CDR”). This lever is added as an insurance against surprises (due to policy lapses, mitigation delays, or non-linear climate
changes) and would require development of scalable measures for removing the CO2 already in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 that must be
removed will range from negligible, if the emissions of CO2 from the energy system and SLCPs start to decrease by 2020 and carbon neutrality is
achieved by 2050, to a staggering one trillion tons, if CO2 emissions continue to increase until 2030, and the carbon lever is not pulled until after 2030.
This issue is raised because the NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) accompanying the Paris Agreement would allow CO2 emissions to increase
until 2030. We call on economists and experts in political and administrative systems to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reducing carbon
and SLCPs emissions beginning in 2020 compared with delaying it by ten years and then being forced to pull the third lever to extract one trillion tons of
CO2

The fast mitigation plan of requiring emissions reductions to begin by 2020, which means that many countries need to cut now, is urgently needed to
limit the warming to well under 2°C. Climate change is not a linear problem. Instead, we are facing non-linear climate tipping points that can lead to
self-reinforcing and cascading climate change impacts. Tipping points and selfreinforcing feedbacks are wild cards that are more likely with increased
temperatures, and many of the potential abrupt climate shifts could happen as warming goes from 1.5°C in 15 years to 2°C by 2050, with the potential
to push us well beyond the Paris Agreement goals.

Where Do We Go from Here?

A massive effort will be needed to stop warming at 2°C, and time is of the essence. With
unchecked business-as-usual emissions, global warming has a 50% likelihood of exceeding 4ºC
and a 5% probability of exceeding 6ºC in this century, raising existential questions for most,
but especially the poorest three billion people. A 4ºC warming is likely to expose as many as
75% of the global population to deadly heat. Dangerous to catastrophic impacts on the health of people including
generations yet to be born, on the health of ecosystems, and on species extinction have emerged as major justifications for mitigating climate change
well below 2ºC, although we must recognize that the uncertainties intrinsic in climate and social systems make it hard to pin down exactly the level of
warming that will trigger possibly catastrophic impacts. To avoid these consequences, we must act now, and we must act fast and effectively. This
report sets out a specific plan for reducing climate change in both the near- and long-term. With aggressive urgent actions, we can protect ourselves.
Acting quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change by decarbonization will save millions of lives, trillions of dollars in economic costs, and massive
suffering and dislocation to people around the world. This is a global security imperative, as it can avoid the migration and destabilization of entire
societies and countries and reduce the likelihood of environmentally driven civil wars and other conflicts.

Staying well under 2°C will require a concerted global effort. We must address everything from our energy systems to our personal choices to reduce
emissions to the greatest extent possible. We must redouble our efforts to invent, test, and perfect systems of governance so that the large measure of
international cooperation needed to achieve these goals can be realized in practice. The health of people for generations to come and the health of
ecosystems crucially depend on an energy revolution beginning now that will take us away from fossil fuels and toward the clean renewable energy
sources of the future. It will be nearly impossible to obtain other critical social goals, including for example the UN agenda 2030 with the Sustainable
Development Goals, if we do not make immediate and profound progress stabilizing climate, as we are outlining here.

1. The Building Blocks Approach The 2015 Paris Agreement, which went into effect November 2016, is a remarkable, historic achievement. For the frst
time, essentially all nations have committed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions and take other actions to limit global temperature and adapt to
unavoidable climate change. Nations agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” and “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by
sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century” (UNFCCC, 2015). Nevertheless, the initial Paris Agreement has to

be strengthened substantially within fve years if we are to prevent catastrophic warming; current
pledges place the world on
track for up to 3.4°C by 2100 (UNEP, 2016b). Until now, no specifc policy roadmap exists that
provides a realistic and reasonable chance of limiting global temperatures to safe levels and
preventing unmanageable climate change. This report is our attempt to provide such a plan— an outline of specifc solutions
that serve as the building blocks for a comprehensive strategy for limiting the warming to well under 2°C and avoiding dangerous climate change
(Figure 1). The frst building block is the full implementation of the nationally determined mitigation pledges under the Paris Agreement of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and strengthening global sister agreements, such as the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol to phase down HFCs, which can provide additional targeted, fast action mitigation at scale. For the second building block, numerous sub-
national and city scale climate action plans have to be scaled up such as California’s Under 2 Coalition signed by 177 jurisdictions from 37 countries on
six continents. The third building block is targeted measures to reduce emissions of shortlived climate pollutants (SLCPs), beginning now and fully
implemented by 2030, along with major measures to fully decarbonize the global economy, causing the overall emissions growth rate to stop in 2020-
2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Such a deep decarbonization would require an energy revolution similar to the Industrial Revolution that
was based on fossil fuels. The fnal building block includes scalable and reversible carbon dioxide (CO2 ) removal measures, which can begin removing
CO2 already emitted into the atmosphere. Such a plan is urgently needed. Climate change is not a linear problem. Instead, climate tipping points can
lead to self-reinforcing, cascading climate change impacts (Lenton et al., 2008). Tipping points are more likely with increased temperatures, and many
of the potential abrupt climate shifts could happen as warming goes from 1.5°C to 2°C, with the potential to push us well beyond the Paris Agreement

goals (Drijfhout et al., 2015). In order to avoid dangerous climate change, we must address these concerns. We
must act now, and we
must act fast. Reduction of SLCPs will result in fast, near-term reductions in warming, while
present-day reductions of CO2 will result in long-term climate benefts . This two-lever approach—aggressively
cutting both SLCPs and CO2 –-will slow warming in the coming decades when it is most crucial to avoid impacts from climate change as well as maintain
a safe climate many decades from now. To achieve the nearterm goals, we have outlined solutions to be implemented immediately. These solutions to
bend down the rising emissions curve and thus bend the warming trajectory curve follow a 2015 assessment by the University of California under its
Carbon Neutrality Initiative (Ramanathan et al., 2016). The solutions are clustered into categories of social transformation, governance improvement,
market- and regulation-based solutions, technological innovation and transformation, and natural and ecosystem management. Additionally, we need
to intensely investigate and pursue a third lever—ACE (Atmospheric Carbon Extraction). While many potential technologies exist, we do not know the
extent to which they could be scaled up to remove the requisite amount of carbon from the atmosphere in order to achieve the Paris Agreement goals,
and any delay in mitigation will demand increasing reliance on these technologies. Yet, there is still hope. Humanity can come together, as we have
done in the past, to collaborate towards a common goal. We have no choice but to tackle the challenge of climate change. We only have the choice of

when and how: either

now, through the ambitious plan outlined here, or later, through radical
adaptation and societal transformations in response to an ever-deteriorating climate system
that will unleash devastating impacts—some of which may be beyond our capacity to fully
adapt to or reverse for thousands of years.
2. Major Climate Disruptions: How Soon and How Fast? “Without adequate mitigation and adaptation, climate change poses unacceptable risks to
global public health.” (WHO, 2016)

The planet has already witnessed nearly 1°C of warming, and another 0.6°C of additional warming is currently stored in the ocean to be released over
the next two to four decades, if climate warming emissions are not radically reduced during that time (IPCC, 2013). The impacts of this warming on
extreme weather, droughts, and foods are being felt by society worldwide to the extent that many think of this no longer as climate change but as
climate disruption. Consider the business as usual scenario:

15 years from now: In 15 years, planetary warming will reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial global mean temperature (Ramanathan and Xu, 2010; Shindell
et al., 2012). This exceeds the 0.5°C to 1°C of warming during the Eemian period, 115,000– 130,000 years ago, when sea-levels reached 6-9 meters (20-
30 feet) higher than today (Hansen et al., 2016b). The impacts of this warming will affect us all yet will disproportionately affect the Earth’s poorest
three billion people, who are primarily subsistence farmers that still rely on 18th century technologies and have the least capacity to adapt (IPCC,
2014a; Dasgupta et al., 2015). They thus may be forced to resort to mass migration into city slums and push across international borders (U.S. DOD,
2015). The existential fate of lowlying small islands and coastal communities will also need to be addressed, as they are primarily vulnerable to sea-level
rise, diminishing freshwater resources, and more intense storms. In addition, many depend on fsheries for protein, and these are likely to be affected
by ocean acidifcation and climate change. Climate injustice could start causing visible regional and international conficts. All of this will be exacerbated
as the risk of passing tipping points increases (Lenton et al., 2008).

30 years from now: By mid-century, warming is expected to exceed 2°C, which would be unprecedented with respect to historical records of at least
the last one million years (IPCC, 2014c). Such a warming through this century could result in sea-level rise of as much as 2 meters by 2100, with greater
sea-level rise to follow. A group of tipping points are clustered between 1.5°C and 2°C (Figure 2) (Drijfhout et al., 2015). The melting of most mountain
glaciers, including those in the Tibetan-Himalayas, combined with mega-droughts, heat waves, storms, and foods, would adversely affect nearly
everyone on the planet.

80 years from now: In 80 years, warming is expected to exceed 4°C, increasing the likelihood of irreversible and catastrophic change (World Bank,
2013b). 4ºC warming is likely to expose as much as 75% of the global population to deadly heat (Mora et al., 2017). The 2°C and 4°C values quoted
above and in other reports, however, are merely the central values with a 50% probability of occurrence (Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). There is a 5%
probability the warming could be as high as 6°C due to uncertainties in the magnitude of amplifying feedbacks (see Section 4). This in turn could lead to
major disruptions to natural and social systems, threatening food security, water security, and national security and fundamentally affecting the great
majority of the projected 11.2 billion inhabitants of the planet in 2100 (UN DESA, 2015).

3. What Are the Wild Cards for Climate Disruption? Increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases radiative forcing
(the difference between the amount of energy entering the atmosphere and leaving) and thus increases the global temperature (IPCC, 2013). However,
climate wild cards exist that can alter the linear connection with warming and anthropogenic emissions by triggering abrupt changes in the climate
(Lenton et al., 2008). Some of these wild cards have not been thoroughly captured by the models that policymakers rely on the most. These abrupt
shifts are irreversible on a human time scale (<100 years) and will create a notable disruption to the climate system, condemning the world to warming
beyond that which we have previously projected. These climate disruptions would divert resources from needed mitigation and upset mitigation
strategies that we have already put in place.
1. Unmasking Aerosol Cooling: The frst such wild card is the unmasking of an estimated 0.7°C (with an uncertainty range of 0.3°C to 1.2°C) of the
warming in addition to mitigating other aerosol effects such as disrupting rainfall patterns, by reducing emissions of aerosols such as sulfates and
nitrates as part of air pollution regulations (Wigley, 1991; Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). Aerosol air pollution is a major health hazard with massive
costs to public health and society, including contributing to about 7 million deaths (from household and ambient exposure) each year (WHO, 2014).
While some aerosols, such as black carbon and brown carbon, strongly absorb sunlight and warm the climate, others refect sunlight back into space,
which cools the climate (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). The net impact of all manmade aerosols is negative, meaning that about 30% of the
warming from greenhouse gases is being masked by co-emitted air pollution particles (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). As we reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and implement policies to eliminate air pollution, we are also reducing the concentration of aerosols in the air. Aerosols last in the
atmosphere for about a week, so if we eliminate air pollution without reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases, the unmasking alone would lead to
an estimated 0.7°C of warming within a matter of decades (Ramanathan and Feng, 2008). We must eliminate all aerosol emissions due to their health
effects, but we must simultaneously mitigate emissions of CO2 , other greenhouse gases, and black carbon and co-pollutants to avoid an abrupt and
very large jump in the near-term warming beyond 2°C (Brasseur and Roeckner, 2005).

2. Tipping Points:
It is likely that as we cross the 1.5°C to 2°C thresholds we will trigger so called
“tipping points” for abrupt and nonlinear changes in the climate system with catastrophic
consequences for humanity and the environment (Lenton, 2008; Drijfhout et al., 2015). Once the tipping points are passed, the resulting
impacts will range in timescales from: disruption of monsoon systems (transition in a year), loss of sea ice (approximately a decade for transition),
dieback of major forests (nearly half a century for transition), reorganization of ocean circulation (approximately a century for transition), to loss of ice
sheets and subsequent sea-level rise (transition over hundreds of years) (Lenton et al., 2008). Regardless of timescale, once underway many of these
changes would be irreversible (Lontzek et al., 2015). There is also a likelihood of crossing over multiple tipping points simultaneously. Warming of close
to 3°C would subject the system to a 46% probability of crossing multiple tipping points, while warming of close to 5°C would increase the risk to 87%
(Cai et al., 2016). Recent modeling work shows a “cluster” of these tipping points could be triggered between 1.5°C and 2°C warming (Figure 2),
including melting of land and sea ice and changes in highlatitude ocean circulation (deep convection) (Drijfhout et al., 2015). This is consistent with
existing observations and understanding that the polar regions are particularly sensitive to global warming and have several potentially imminent
tipping points. The Arctic is warming nearly twice as quickly as the global average, which makes the abrupt changes in the Arctic more likely at a lower
level of global warming (IPCC, 2013). Similarly, the Himalayas are warming at roughly the same rate as the Arctic and are thus also more susceptible to
incremental changes in temperature (UNEP-WMO, 2011). This gives further justifcation for limiting warming to no more than 1.5°C.

While all climate tipping points have the potential to rapidly destabilize climate, social, and economic systems, some are also self-amplifying

feedbacks that once set in motion increase warming in such a way that they perpetuate yet
even more warming. Declining Arctic sea ice, thawing permafrost, and the poleward migration
of cloud systems are all examples of self-amplifying feedback mechanisms, where initial
warming feeds upon itself to cause still more warming acting as a force multiplier (Schuur et
al., 2015).

Yes extinction
Sharp and Kennedy, 14 – is an associate professor on the faculty of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic
Studies (NESA). A former British Army Colonel he retired in 2006 and emigrated to the U.S. Since joining NESA in 2010, he has
focused on Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported NESA events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Qatar. He is
the faculty lead for NESA’s work supporting theUAE National Defense College through an ongoing Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case.
He also directs the Network of Defense and Staff Colleges (NDSC) which aims to provide best practice support to regional
professional military and security sector education development and reform. Prior to joining NESA, he served for 4 years as an
assistant professor at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) at National Defense University where he wrote and taught a
Masters' Degree syllabus for a program concentration in Conflict Management of Stability Operations and also taught strategy,
counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and also created an International Homeland Defense Fellowship program. At CISA he also
designed, wrote and taught courses supporting the State Department's Civilian Response Corps utilizing conflict management
approaches. Bob served 25 years in the British Army and was personally decorated by Her Majesty the Queen twice. Aftergraduating
from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in 1981, he served in command and staff roles on operations in Northern Ireland,
Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Cyprus. He has worked in policy and technical staff appointments in the UK Ministry of Defense
and also UK Defense Intelligence plus several multi-national organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE). In his later career, he specialized in intelligence. He is a 2004 distinguished graduate of the National War College and
holds a masters degree in National Security Strategy from National Defense University, Washington, D.C. AND is a renewable energy
and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and
markets (Robert and Edward, 8-22, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security”
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/

Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December
27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th
humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be
surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of
underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5
billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year

calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens
our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The
implications of climate change are the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we
are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the
science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a
result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed
few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to
droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests

that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of
sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat

and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water
and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the
oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial
river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating . As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there
is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area
of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light . A potentially critical wild card
could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four

times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change
including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed . It is human

intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled
with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our
agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus.
Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the
planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in
reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus

the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as
mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security . Resource wars are

inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources.
These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for

national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon
titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in

turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations
but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not

the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior
a shock for national security systems. In 2006

retiredgenerals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change . Their initial
report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was

a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.”
The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing

because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations
provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security
(which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders .” Asia would suffer from “threats to water

and the spread of infectious disease.” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the
intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of
Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire
government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to
integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public
discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements
(ways to stabilize climate change) and states thA2: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated
with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in
resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a

the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate

failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of

Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into
turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands
submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people

desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and
farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by
the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human

impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster
conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this
case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible

from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global.
With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of
consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!

Extinction.
Dr. Yew-Kwang Ng 19, Winsemius Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technological University,
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of Advisory Board at the
Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, PhD in Economics from Sydney University,
“Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism”, Global
Policy, Volume 10, Number 2, May 2019, pp. 258–266

Catastrophic climatechange Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to
interrelated factors of non-linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative
factors, critical thresholds and tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev et al.,
2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012; IPCC 2014; Kareiva and Carranza, 2018; Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman,
2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016; Van Aalst, 2006).7 A
possibly imminent tipping point could be in
the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p.
399). There are many avenues for positive feedback in global warming, including: • the replacement of
an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the reflection and increases the
absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming; • the drying of forests from warming increases forest
fires and the release of more carbon; and • higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of
methane trapped under the ocean floor, producing runaway global warming. Though there are also
avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall net positive feedback
(Roe and Baker, 2007). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p. 25) concludes, ‘The world is currently
completely unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’. The threat of sea-
level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely and more
imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For example , Sherwood and
Huber (2010) emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high
environmental wet-bulb temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could ... expose
large fractions of the [world] population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with
substantial global warming, ‘the area of land rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would
dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p. 9555, making extinction much more likely and the relatively
moderate damages estimated by most integrated assessment models unreliably low. While imminent extinction is very
unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main point is that we cannot rule it out.
Annan and Hargreaves (2011, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper 95 per cent probability limit for S
[temperature increase] ... to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C’. However,
probabilities of 5 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 0.05 per cent or even 0.005 per cent of excessive
warming and the resulting extinction probabilities cannot be ruled out and are unacceptable.
Even if there is only a 1 per cent probability that there is a time bomb in the airplane, you
probably want to change your flight. Extinction of the whole world is more important to avoid
by literally a trillion times.

It causes extinction from oxygen, disease, ice melt, and cognitive failure
Bill McKibben 19, Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out”, Rolling
Stone, 4/9/2019, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-mckibben-falter-
climate-change-817310/

Oh, it could get very bad.

In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if

the world’s oceans kept warming, by
2100 they might become hot enough to “stop oxygen production by phyto-plankton by
disrupting the process of photosynthesis.” Given that two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes
from phytoplankton, that would “likely result in the mass mortality of animals and humans.”
A year later, above the Arctic Circle, in Siberia, a heat wave thawed a reindeer carcass that had been trapped in the permafrost. The
exposed body released anthrax into nearby water and soil, infecting two thousand reindeer grazing nearby, and they in turn infected
some humans; a twelve-year-old boy died. As it turns out, permafrost is a “very good preserver of microbes and
viruses, because it is cold, there is no oxygen, and it is dark” — scientists have managed to revive an eight-million-year-old
bacterium they found beneath the surface of a glacier. Researchers believe there are fragments of the Spanish flu virus,
smallpox, and bubonic plague buried in Siberia and Alaska.

Or consider this: as ice sheets melt, they take weight off land, and that can trigger earthquakes —
seismic activity is already increasing in Greenland and Alaska. Meanwhile, the added weight of the new seawater starts to bend the
Earth’s crust. “That will give you a massive increase in volcanic activity. It’ll activate faults to create earthquakes, submarine
landslides, tsunamis, the whole lot,” explained the director of University College London’s Hazard Centre. Such a landslide
happened in Scandinavia about eight thousand years ago, as the last Ice Age retreated and a Kentucky-size section of Norway’s
continental shelf gave way, “plummeting down to the abyssal plain and creating a series of titanic waves that roared forth with a
vengeance,” wiping all signs of life from coastal Norway to Greenland and “drowning the Wales-sized landmass that once
connected Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.” When the waves hit the Shetlands, they were sixty-five feet high.

There’s even this: if we keep raising carbon dioxide levels, we may not be able to think straight
anymore. At a thousand parts per million (which is within the realm of possibility for 2100), human cognitive ability
falls 21 percent. “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy,” a Harvard study
reported, which is too bad, as those skills are what we seem to need most.
Prioritize climate change because the impacts are irreversible.
Paul R. Pillar 16, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown
University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. 11-25-
2016, "Climate Change and the Priority of the Irreversible," National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/climate-change-the-priority-the-irreversible-18510?
page=show

Here is a suggestion, for those who really want to make a positive contribution to the common
interest, on how to prioritize issues on which there is well-founded worry about the damage
that the Trump administration may cause. Besides thinking very carefully, from a broad frame of
reference, about what is intrinsically most important, think about where that damage is most
likely to be irreversible, or at least where it cannot be reversed without much more difficulty
and uncertainty than other types of damage can be. Many issues, although they are important
and although bad policy on them can inflict much pain, are quite reversible. This is true of many topics in
fiscal and economic policy. Even if, for example, financial deregulation hastens the coming of another financial crisis and another Great Recession, this
will cause a lot of economic pain to the people but the nation will recover, as it recovered from the first Great Recession. With
many
domestic policies, generally more so than with foreign policy, the self-corrective mechanism of
disenchanted voters deciding to cast their votes in a different direction comes into play . This likely will
be the case with many who supported Trump this year coming to see that his policies provide no improvement to the economic situations that
underlay their discontent. Higher in priority are matters involving the integrity and validity of the democratic process through which all other policies
are made. Here the element of irreversibility, or of difficulty in reversing, involves an entrenched ruling minority using techniques to stay entrenched,
well after it has lost whatever majority it once may have had. This topic includes voter suppression laws, in which a party in power impedes the exercise
of the right to vote in ways that disproportionately disadvantage supporters of the other party. It also includes gerrymandering of legislative and
Congressional districts, which is why a recent decision by a federal district court involving a case in Wisconsin, which has confronted this problem
directly, is so important. It is reasonable to view such techniques as potentially a step toward authoritarianism. Most of the action on this topic,
however, is to be found in the state legislatures and the courts, and is not necessarily a product of a president’s policies. The
highest
priority, given the criterion of irreversibility of presidentially-inflicted harm, should go to the
issue of climate change and the need to arrest global warming. The intrinsic importance of the subject ought to
be beyond question: using a broad frame of reference, it would be hard to think of anything more vital for us

humans than keeping the planet habitable for humans. The difficulty in reversing any damage from presidential policies
has two elements, one of which involves international politics and the fragility of international cooperation. With the Paris climate accord and
understandings reached between the United States and China, the last few years have seen a welcome momentum in the right direction. If
the
United States, one of the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, were to lurch away from the
international consensus in the next four years, the momentum would be hard to recover. Even
more genuinely irreversible are some of the geophysical processes involved. One of the most
disturbing aspects of global warming is that it involves self-reinforcing feedback loops that
would make it extremely hard if not impossible to reverse the warming trend—at least on any
time scale that has meaning as far as the history of the human species is concerned—once the
trend passes certain tipping points. This means even a human race universally committed
several years or decades from now to saving the planet would be unable to accomplish some
things toward that end that humans of today could accomplish . In short, the next several years
matter a lot, and if they are not used well, irreversibility becomes more of a problem . An
example of such a feedback loop involves sea ice in the Arctic. The warmer it gets in the Arctic,
the less ice there is. And the less ice there is, the less sunlight is reflected off the surface, the
more heat is absorbed, and the more global warming accelerates further. The extent of Arctic
sea ice right now, which is at an off-the-charts low for this time of year, ought to be ringing
alarm bells. Another feedback loop involves land areas in the Arctic. Thawing of long-frozen
tundra and organic material within it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas that
exacerbates the global warming. Climate change deniers ought to be treated with all the disdain they richly deserve. Going against
the overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject ought to be given as much respect as belief that the Earth is flat. Those who place short-term
financial or political interests ahead of the fate of the planet should be condemned for their indefensibly selfish and short-sighted posture.

Unchecked climate change causes extinction.

Weston 21 - (Phoebe Weston, biodiversity writer for the Guardian; 1-14-2021, Guardian, "Top
scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption," doa: 10-24-2021)
url: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/top-scientists-warn-of-ghastly-
future-of-mass-extinction-and-climate-disruption-aoe

The planet is facing a “ghastly future of mass extinction, declining health and climate-disruption
upheavals” that threaten human survival because of ignorance and inaction, according to an
international group of scientists, who warn people still haven’t grasped the urgency of the
biodiversity and climate crises.

The 17 experts, including Prof Paul Ehrlich from Stanford University, author of The Population
Bomb, and scientists from Mexico, Australia and the US, say the planet is in a much worse state
than most people – even scientists – understood.

“The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms – including humanity – is in fact so
great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts,” they write in a report in
Frontiers in Conservation Science which references more than 150 studies detailing the world’s
major environmental challenges.

The delay between destruction of the natural world and the impacts of these actions means
people do not recognise how vast the problem is, the paper argues. “[The] mainstream is having
difficulty grasping the magnitude of this loss, despite the steady erosion of the fabric of human
civilisation.”

The report warns that climate-induced mass migrations, more pandemics and conflicts over
resources will be inevitable unless urgent action is taken.
“Ours is not a call to surrender – we aim to provide leaders with a realistic ‘cold shower’ of the state of the planet that is essential for planning to avoid a ghastly future,” it adds.

Dealing with the enormity of the problem requires far-reaching changes to global capitalism, education and equality, the paper says. These include abolishing the idea of perpetual economic growth, properly pricing environmental externalities, stopping the use of fossil fuels, reining in corporate lobbying, and empowering women, the researchers argue.

The report comes months after the world failed to meet a single UN Aichi biodiversity target, created to stem the destruction of the natural world, the second consecutive time governments have failed to meet their 10-year biodiversity goals. This week a coalition of more than 50 countries pledged to protect almost a third of the planet by 2030.

An estimated one million species are at risk of extinction, many within decades, according to a recent UN report.

“Environmental deterioration is infinitely more threatening to civilisation than Trumpism or Covid-19,” Ehrlich told the Guardian.

In The Population Bomb, published in 1968, Ehrlich warned of imminent population explosion and hundreds of millions of people starving to death. Although he has acknowledged some timings were wrong, he has said he stands by its fundamental message that population growth and high levels of consumption by wealthy nations is driving destruction.

He told the Guardian: “Growthmania is the fatal disease of civilisation - it must be replaced by campaigns that make equity and well-being society’s goals - not consuming more junk.”

Large populations and their continued growth drive soil degradation and biodiversity loss, the new paper warns. “More people means that more synthetic compounds and dangerous throwaway plastics are manufactured, many of which add to the growing toxification of the Earth. It also increases the chances of pandemics that fuel ever-more desperate
hunts for scarce resources.”

Biologists fear hundreds of thousands of birds may have died on their migration through the state of New Mexico because they were unable to find food.

The effects of the climate emergency are more evident than biodiversity loss, but still, society is failing to cut emissions, the paper argues. If people understood the magnitude of the crises, changes in politics and policies could match the gravity of the threat.

“Our main point is that once you realise the scale and imminence of the problem, it becomes clear that we need much more than individual actions like using less plastic, eating less meat, or flying less. Our point is that we need big systematic changes and fast,” Professor Daniel Blumstein from the University of California Los Angeles, who helped write
the paper, told the Guardian.

The paper cites a number of key reports published in the past few years including :

The World Economic Forum report in 2020, which named biodiversity loss as one of the top
threats to the global economy.
The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment report which said 70% of the planet had been altered by
humans.

The 2020 WWF Living Planet report, which said the average population size of vertebrates had
declined by 68% in the past five decades.

A 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which said that humanity had
already exceeded global warming of 1C above pre-industrial levels and is set to reach 1.5C
warming between 2030 and 2052.

The report follows years of stark warnings about the state of the planet from the world’s leading
scientists, including a statement by 11,000 scientists in 2019 that people will face “ untold
suffering due to the climate crisis” unless major changes are made. In 2016, more than 150 of
Australia’s climate scientists wrote an open letter to the then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull,
demanding immediate action on reducing emissions. In the same year, 375 scientists – including
30 Nobel prize winners – wrote an open letter to the world about their frustrations over
political inaction on climate change.

Warming causes extinction.

Bill McKibben 19. Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College; fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences; holds honorary degrees from 18 colleges and
universities; Foreign Policy named him to their inaugural list of the world’s 100 most
important global thinkers. "This Is How Human Extinction Could Play Out." Rolling Stone.
4-9-2019. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/bill-mckibben-falter-
climate-change-817310/
it could get very bad. In 2015, a study in the Journal of Mathematical Biology pointed out that if
Oh,

the world’s oceans kept warming, by 2100 they might become hot enough to “stop oxygen
production by phyto-plankton by disrupting the process of photosynthesis.” Given that
two-thirds of the Earth’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton, that would “likely result in
the mass mortality of animals and humans.” A year later, above the Arctic Circle, in Siberia, a heat wave thawed a reindeer carcass that had been
trapped in the permafrost. The exposed body released anthrax into nearby water and soil, infecting two thousand reindeer grazing nearby, and they in turn infected some humans; a twelve-year-old boy

permafrost is a “very good preserver of microbes and viruses, because it is cold,

died. As it turns out,

there is no oxygen, and it is dark” — scientists have managed to revive an eight-million-year-old bacterium they found beneath the surface of a glacier. Researchers
believe there are fragments of the Spanish flu virus, smallpox, and bubonic plague buried in

Siberia and Alaska. Or consider this: as ice sheets melt, they take weight off land, and that can trigger
earthquakes — seismic activity is already increasing in Greenland and Alaska. Meanwhile, the added weight of the new seawater starts to bend the Earth’s crust. “That will
give you a massive increase in volcanic activity. It’ll activate faults to create earthquakes,
submarine landslides, tsunamis, the whole lot,” explained the director of University College London’s Hazard Centre. Such a landslide happened in Scandinavia about
eight thousand years ago, as the last Ice Age retreated and a Kentucky-size section of Norway’s continental shelf gave way, “ plummeting down to the abyssal

plain and creating a series of titanic waves that roared forth with a vengeance,” wiping all
signs of life from coastal Norway to Greenland and “drowning the Wales-sized landmass that once connected Britain to the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.” When the waves hit the
Shetlands, they were sixty-five feet high. There’s even this: if we keep raising carbon dioxide levels, we may not be able to think straight anymore. At a thousand parts per million (which is within the
realm of possibility for 2100), human cognitive ability falls 21 percent. “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy,” a Harvard study reported, which is too bad, as
those skills are what we seem to need most. I could, in other words, do my best to scare you silly. I’m not opposed on principle — changing something as fundamental as the composition of the
atmosphere, and hence the heat balance of the planet, is certain to trigger all manner of horror, and we shouldn’t shy away from it. The dramatic uncertainty that lies ahead may be the most frightening
development of all; the physical world is going from backdrop to foreground. (It’s like the contrast between politics in the old days, when you could forget about Washington for weeks at a time, and
politics in the Trump era, when the president is always jumping out from behind a tree to yell at you.) But let’s try to occupy ourselves with the most likely scenarios, because they are more than
disturbing enough. Long before we get to tidal waves or smallpox, long before we choke to death or stop thinking clearly, we will need to concentrate on the most mundane and basic facts: everyone
needs to eat every day, and an awful lot of us live near the ocean. FOOD SUPPLY first. We’ve had an amazing run since the end of World War II, with crop yields growing fast enough to keep ahead of a
fast-rising population. It’s come at great human cost — displaced peasant farmers fill many of the planet’s vast slums — but in terms of sheer volume, the Green Revolution’s fertilizers, pesticides, and
machinery managed to push output sharply upward. That climb, however, now seems to be running into the brute facts of heat and drought. There are studies to demonstrate the dire effects of warming
on coffee, cacao, chickpeas, and champagne, but it is cereals that we really need to worry about, given that they supply most of the planet’s calories: corn, wheat, and rice all evolved as crops in the climate
of the last ten thousand years, and though plant breeders can change them, there are limits to those changes. You can move a person from Hanoi to Edmonton, and she might decide to open a Vietnamese
restaurant. But if you move a rice plant, it will die. A 2017 study in Australia, home to some of the world’s highest-tech farming, found that “ wheat productivity has
flatlined as a direct result of climate change.” After tripling between 1900 and 1990, wheat yields had stagnated since, as temperatures
increased a degree and rainfall declined by nearly a third. “The chance of that just being variable climate without the underlying factor [of climate change] is less than one in a hundred billion,” the
researchers said, and it meant that despite all the expensive new technology farmers kept introducing, “they have succeeded only in standing still, not in moving forward.” Assuming the same trends
continued, yields would actually start to decline inside of two decades, they reported. In June 2018, researchers found that a two-degree Celsius rise in temperature — which, recall, is what the Paris
accords are now aiming for — could cut U.S. corn yields by 18 percent. A four-degree increase — which is where our current trajectory will take us — would cut the crop almost in half. The United States

Corn is vulnerable because even a week of high

is the world’s largest producer of corn, which in turn is the planet’s most widely grown crop.

temperatures at the key moment can keep it from fertilizing. (“You only get one chance to pollinate a quadrillion kernels of
corn,” the head of a commodity consulting firm explained.) But even the hardiest crops are susceptible. Sorghum, for instance, which is a staple for half a billion humans, is particularly hardy in dry

Thirty years of data from the

conditions because it has big, fibrous roots that reach far down into the earth. Even it has limits, though, and they are being reached.

American Midwest show that heat waves affect the “vapor pressure deficit,” the difference
between the water vapor in the sorghum leaf’s interior and that in the surrounding air .
Hotter weather means the sorghum releases more moisture into the atmosphere . Warm the
planet’s temperature by two degrees Celsius — which is, again, now the world’s goal — and sorghum yields drop
17 percent. Warm it five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit), and yields drop almost 60 percent. It’s hard to
imagine a topic duller than sorghum yields. It’s the precise opposite of clickbait. But people have to eat; in the human game, the single most important question is probably

“What’s for dinner?” And when the answer is “Not much,” things deteriorate fast. In 2010 a severe heat wave hit Russia,

and it wrecked the grain harvest, which led the Kremlin to ban exports . The global price of
wheat spiked, and that helped trigger the Arab Spring — Egypt at the time was the largest
wheat importer on the planet. That experience set academics and insurers to work gaming
out what the next food shock might look like. In 2017 one team imagined a vigorous El Niñ o, with the attendant floods and droughts — for a season,
in their scenario, corn and soy yields declined by 10 percent, and wheat and rice by 7 percent. The result was chaos: “quadrupled commodity prices, civil unrest, significant negative humanitarian

Food riots break out in urban areas across the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin
consequences . . .

America. The euro weakens and the main European stock markets lose ten percent.” At about the same time, a team of British researchers released a study demonstrating that even if you can
grow plenty of food, the transportation system that distributes it runs through just fourteen major

choke-points, and those are vulnerable to — you guessed it — massive disruption from climate change.
For instance, U.S. rivers and canals carry a third of the world’s corn and soy, and they’ve been frequently shut down or crimped by flooding and drought in recent years. Brazil accounts for 17 percent of
the world’s grain exports, but heavy rainfall in 2017 stranded three thousand trucks. “It’s the glide path to a perfect storm,” said one of the report’s authors. Five weeks after that, another report raised an
even deeper question. What if you can figure out how to grow plenty of food, and you can figure out how to guarantee its distribution, but the food itself has lost much of its value? The paper, in the
journal Environmental Research, said that rising carbon dioxide levels, by speeding plant growth, seem to have reduced the amount of protein in basic staple crops, a finding so startling that, for many
years, agronomists had overlooked hints that it was happening. But it seems to be true: when researchers grow grain at the carbon dioxide levels we expect for later this century, they find that minerals
such as calcium and iron drop by 8 percent, and protein by about the same amount. In the developing world, where people rely on plants for their protein, that means huge reductions in nutrition: India
alone could lose 5 percent of the protein in its total diet, putting 53 million people at new risk for protein deficiency. The loss of zinc, essential for maternal and infant health, could endanger 138 million
people around the world. In 2018, rice researchers found “significantly less protein” when they grew eighteen varieties of rice in high–carbon dioxide test plots. “The idea that food became less nutritious
was a surprise,” said one researcher. “It’s not intuitive. But I think we should continue to expect surprises. We are completely altering the biophysical conditions that underpin our food system.” And not
just ours. People don’t depend on goldenrod, for instance, but bees do. When scientists looked at samples of goldenrod in the Smithsonian that dated back to 1842, they found that the protein content of
its pollen had “declined by a third since the industrial revolution — and the change closely tracks with the rise in carbon dioxide.” Bees help crops, obviously, so that’s scary news. But in August 2018, a
massive new study found something just as frightening: crop pests were thriving in the new heat. “It gets better and better for them,” said one University of Colorado researcher. Even if we hit the UN

Warmer temperatures
target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius, pests should cut wheat yields by 46 percent, corn by 31 percent, and rice by 19 percent. “

accelerate the metabolism of insect pests like aphids and corn borers at a predictable rate ,” the
researchers found. “That makes them hungrier [,] and warmer temperatures also speed up their

reproduction.” Even fossilized plants from fifty million years ago make the point: “ Plant
damage from insects correlated with rising and falling temperatures, reaching a
maximum during the warmest periods.”

Only our impact accesses extinction

Reisner et al. 18 (Jon Reisner – Climate and atmospheric scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Gennaro D’Angelo –
Climate scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research scientist at the SETI institute, Associate specialist at the University
of California, Santa Cruz, NASA Postdoctoral Fellow at the NASA Ames Research Center, UKAFF Fellow at the University of Exeter.
Eunmo Koo - Scientist at Applied Terrestrial, Energy, and Atmospheric Modeling (ATEAM) Team, in Computational Earth Science
Group (EES-16) in Earth and Environmental Sciences Division and Co-Lead of Parallel Computing Summer Research Internship (PCSRI)
program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, former Staff research associate at UC Berkeley. Wesley Even - Computational
scientist in the Computational Physics and Methods Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Matthew Hecht – Atmospheric
scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Elizabeth Hunke - Lead developer for the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model (CICE) at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory responsible for development and incorporation of new parameterizations, model testing and validation,
computational performance, documentation, and consultation with external model users on all aspects of sea ice modeling,
including interfacing with global climate and earth system models. Darin Comeau – Climate scientist at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Randy Bos - Project leader at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, former Weapons Effects program manager at Tech-
Source. James Cooley – Computational scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory specializing in weapons physics, emergency
response, and computational physics. <MKIM+KEN> “Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: An
improved assessment based on detailed source calculations,” March 16, 2018. DOA: 7/13/19.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331) *BC = Black Carbon

The no-rubble simulation produces a significantly more intense fire, with more fire spread, and
consequently a significantly stronger plume with larger amounts of BC reaching into the upper
atmosphere than the simulation with rubble, illustrated in Figure 5. While the no-rubble simulation represents
the worst-case scenario involving vigorous fire activity, only a relatively small amount of carbon
makes its way into the stratosphere during the course of the simulation. But while small compared to the surface BC mass, stratospheric BC amounts from the current simulations are significantly higher
than what would be expected from burning vegetation such as trees (Heilman et al., 2014), e.g., the higher energy density of the building fuels and the initial fluence from the weapon produce an intense response within HIGRAD with initial updrafts of order 100 m/s
in the lower troposphere. Or, in comparison to a mass fire, wildfires will burn only a small amount of fuel in the corresponding time period (roughly 10 minutes) that a nuclear weapon fluence can effectively ignite a large area of fuel producing an impressive
atmospheric response. Figure 6 shows vertical profiles of BC multiplied by 100 (number of cities involved in the exchange) from the two simulations. The total amount of BC produced is in line with previous estimates (about 3.69 Tg from no-rubble simulation);
however, the majority of BC resides below the stratosphere (3.46 Tg below 12 km) and can be readily impacted by scavenging from precipitation either via pyro-cumulonimbus produced by the fire itself (not modeled) or other synoptic weather systems. While the
impact on climate of these more realistic profiles will be explored in the next section, it should be mentioned that these estimates are still at the high end, considering the inherent simplifications in the combustion model that lead to overestimating BC production.
3.3 Climate Results Long-term climatic effects critically depend on the initial injection height of the soot, with larger quantities reaching the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere inducing a greater cooling impact because of longer residence times (Robock et al.,
2007a). Absorption of solar radiation by the BC aerosol and its subsequent radiative cooling tends to heat the surrounding air, driving an initial upward diffusion of the soot plumes, an effect that depends on the initial aerosol concentrations. Mixing and
sedimentation tend to reduce this process, and low altitude emissions are also significantly impacted by precipitation if aging of the BC aerosol occurs on sufficiently rapid timescales. But once at stratospheric altitudes, aerosol dilution via coagulation is hindered by

Of the
low particulate concentrations (e.g., Robock et al., 2007a) and lofting to much higher altitudes is inhibited by gravitational settling in the low-density air (Stenke et al., 2013), resulting in more stable BC concentrations over long times.

initial BC mass released in the atmosphere, most of which is emitted below 9 km, 70% rains out within the first month and 78%,

or about 2.9 Tg, is removed within the first two months (Figure 7, solid line), with the remainder (about 0.8 Tg, dashed line) being transported above about 12 km (200 hPa) within the first week. This outcome differs from the findings of, e.g., Stenke et al. (2013,
their high BC-load cases) and Mills et al. (2014), who found that most of the BC mass (between 60 and 70%) is lifted in the stratosphere within the first couple of weeks. This can also be seen in Figure 8 (red lines) and in Figure 9, which include results from our
calculation with the initial BC distribution from Mills et al. (2014). In that case, only 30% of the initial BC mass rains out in the troposphere during the first two weeks after the exchange, with the remainder rising to the stratosphere. In the study of Mills et al. (2008)
this percentage is somewhat smaller, about 20%, and smaller still in the experiments of Robock et al. (2007a) in which the soot is initially emitted in the upper troposphere or higher. In Figure 7, the e-folding timescale for the removal of tropospheric soot, here
interpreted as the time required for an initial drop of a factor e, is about one week. This result compares favorably with the “LT” experiment of Robock et al. (2007a), considering 5 Tg of BC released in the lower troposphere, in which 50% of the aerosols are removed
within two weeks. By contrast, the initial e-folding timescale for the removal of stratospheric soot in Figure 8 is about 4.2 years (blue solid line), compared to about 8.4 years for the calculation using Mills et al. (2014) initial BC emission (red solid line). The removal
timescale from our forced ensemble simulations is close to those obtained by Mills et al. (2008) in their 1 Tg experiment, by Robock et al. (2007a) in their experiment “UT 1 Tg”, and © 2018 American Geophysical Union. All rights reserved. by Stenke et al. (2013) in
their experiment “Exp1”, in all of which 1 Tg of soot was emitted in the atmosphere in the aftermath of the exchange. Notably, the e-folding timescale for the decline of the BC mass in Figure 8 (blue solid line) is also close to the value of about 4 years quoted by
Pausata et al. (2016) for their long-term “intermediate” scenario. In that scenario, which is also based on 5 Tg of soot initially distributed as in Mills et al. (2014), the factor-of2 shorter residence time of the aerosols is caused by particle growth via coagulation of BC
with organic carbon. Figure 9 shows the BC mass-mixing ratio, horizontally averaged over the globe, as a function of atmospheric pressure (height) and time. The BC distributions used in our simulations imply that the upward transport of particles is substantially less
efficient compared to the case in which 5 Tg of BC is directly injected into the upper troposphere. The semiannual cycle of lofting and sinking of the aerosols is associated with atmospheric heating and cooling during the solstice in each hemisphere (Robock et al.,
2007a). During the first year, the oscillation amplitude in our forced ensemble simulations is particularly large during the summer solstice, compared to that during the winter solstice (see bottom panel of Figure 9), because of the higher soot concentrations in the
Northern Hemisphere, as can be seen in Figure 11 (see also left panel of Figure 12). Comparing the top and bottom panels of Figure 9, the BC reaches the highest altitudes during the first year in both cases, but the concentrations at 0.1 hPa in the top panel can be
200 times as large. Qualitatively, the difference can be understood in terms of the air temperature increase caused by BC radiation emission, which is several tens of kelvin degrees in the simulations of Robock et al. (2007a, see their Figure 4), Mills et al. (2008, see
their Figure 5), Stenke et al. (2013, see high-load cases in their Figure 4), Mills et al. (2014, see their Figure 7), and Pausata et al. (2016, see one-day emission cases in their Figure 1), due to high BC concentrations, but it amounts to only about 10 K in our forced
ensemble simulations, as illustrated in Figure 10. Results similar to those presented in Figure 10 were obtained from the experiment “Exp1” performed by Stenke et al. (2013, see their Figure 4). In that scenario as well, somewhat less that 1 Tg of BC remained in the
atmosphere after the initial rainout. As mentioned before, the BC aerosol that remains in the atmosphere, lifted to stratospheric heights by the rising soot plumes, undergoes sedimentation over a timescale of several years (Figures 8 and 9). This mass represents the
effective amount of BC that can force climatic changes over multi-year timescales. In the forced ensemble simulations, it is about 0.8 Tg after the initial rainout, whereas it is about 3.4 Tg in the simulation with an initial soot distribution as in Mills et al. (2014). Our
more realistic source simulation involves the worstcase assumption of no-rubble (along with other assumptions) and hence serves as an upper bound for the impact on climate. As mentioned above and further discussed below, our scenario induces perturbations on
the climate system similar to those found in previous studies in which the climatic response was driven by roughly 1 Tg of soot rising to stratospheric heights following the exchange. Figure 11 illustrates the vertically integrated mass-mixing ratio of BC over the globe,
at various times after the exchange for the simulation using the initial BC distribution of Mills et al. (2014, upper panels) and as an average from the forced ensemble members (lower panels). All simulations predict enhanced concentrations at high latitudes during
the first year after the exchange. In the cases shown in the top panels, however, these high concentrations persist for several years (see also Figure 1 of Mills et al., 2014), whereas the forced ensemble simulations indicate that the BC concentration starts to decline
after the first year. In fact, in the simulation represented in the top panels, mass-mixing ratios larger than about 1 kg of BC © 2018 American Geophysical Union. All rights reserved. per Tg of air persist for well over 10 years after the exchange, whereas they only last
for 3 years in our forced simulations (compare top and middle panels of Figure 9). After the first year, values drop below 3 kg BC/Tg air, whereas it takes about 8 years to reach these values in the simulation in the top panels (see also Robock et al., 2007a). Over crop-
producing, midlatitude regions in the Northern Hemisphere, the BC loading is reduced from more than 0.8 kg BC/Tg air in the simulation in the top panels to 0.2-0.4 kg BC/Tg air in our forced simulations (see middle and right panels). The more rapid clearing of the
atmosphere in the forced ensemble is also signaled by the soot optical depth in the visible radiation spectrum, which drops below values of 0.03 toward the second half of the first year at mid latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, and everywhere on the globe after
about 2.5 years (without never attaining this value in the Southern Hemisphere). In contrast, the soot optical depth in the calculation shown in the top panels of Figure 11 becomes smaller than 0.03 everywhere only after about 10 years. The two cases show a similar
tendency, in that the BC optical depth is typically lower between latitudes 30º S-30º N than it is at other latitudes. This behavior is associated to the persistence of stratospheric soot toward high-latitudes and the Arctic/Antarctic regions, as illustrated by the zonally-
averaged, column-integrated mass-mixing ratio of the BC in Figure 12 for both the forced ensemble simulations (left panel) and the simulation with an initial 5 Tg BC emission in the upper troposphere (right panel). The spread in the globally averaged (near) surface
temperature of the atmosphere, from the control (left panel) and forced (right panel) ensembles, is displayed in Figure 13. For each month, the plots show the largest variations (i.e., maximum and minimum values), within each ensemble of values obtained for that
month, relative to the mean value of that month. The plot also shows yearly-averaged data (thinner lines). The spread is comparable in the control and forced ensembles, with average values calculated over the 33-years run length of 0.4-0.5 K. This spread is also
similar to the internal variability of the globally averaged surface temperature quoted for the NCAR Large Ensemble Community Project (Kay et al., 2015). These results imply that surface air temperature differences, between forced and control simulations, which lie
within the spread may not be distinguished from effects due to internal variability of the two simulation ensembles. Figure 14 shows the difference in the globally averaged surface temperature of the atmosphere (top panel), net solar radiation flux at surface (middle
panel), and precipitation rate (bottom panel), computed as the (forced minus control) difference in ensemble mean values. The sum of standard deviations from each ensemble is shaded. Differences are qualitatively significant over the first few years, when the
anomalies lie near or outside the total standard deviation. Inside the shaded region, differences may not be distinguished from those arising from the internal variability of one or both ensembles. The surface solar flux (middle panel) is the quantity that appears most
affected by the BC emission, with qualitatively significant differences persisting for about 5 years. The precipitation rate (bottom panel) is instead affected only at the very beginning of the simulations. The red lines in all panels show the results from the simulation
applying the initial BC distribution of Mills et al. (2014), where the period of significant impact is much longer owing to the higher altitude of the initial soot distribution that results in longer residence times of the BC aerosol in the atmosphere. When yearly averages
of the same quantities are performed over the IndiaPakistan region, the differences in ensemble mean values lie within the total standard deviations of the two ensembles. The results in Figure 14 can also be compared to the outcomes of other previous studies. In
their experiment “UT 1 Tg”, Robock et al. (2007a) found that, when only 1 Tg of soot © 2018 American Geophysical Union. All rights reserved. remains in the atmosphere after the initial rainout, temperature and precipitation anomalies are about 20% of those
obtained from their standard 5 Tg BC emission case. Therefore, the largest differences they observed, during the first few years after the exchange, were about - 0.3 K and -0.06 mm/day, respectively, comparable to the anomalies in the top and bottom panels of
Figure 14. Their standard 5 Tg emission case resulted in a solar radiation flux anomaly at surface of -12 W/m2 after the second year (see their Figure 3), between 5 and 6 time as large as the corresponding anomalies from our ensembles shown in the middle panel. In
their experiment “Exp1”, Stenke et al. (2013) reported global mean surface temperature anomalies not exceeding about 0.3 K in magnitude and precipitation anomalies hovering around -0.07 mm/day during the first few years, again consistent with the results of
Figure 14. In a recent study, Pausata et al. (2016) considered the effects of an admixture of BC and organic carbon aerosols, both of which would be emitted in the atmosphere in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange. In particular, they concentrated on the effects of
coagulation of these aerosol species and examined their climatic impacts. The initial BC distribution was as in Mills et al. (2014), although the soot burden was released in the atmosphere over time periods of various lengths. Most relevant to our and other previous
work are their one-day emission scenarios. They found that, during the first year, the largest values of the atmospheric surface temperature anomalies ranged between about -0.5 and -1.3 K, those of the sea surface temperature anomalies ranged between -0.2 and -
0.55 K, and those of the precipitation anomalies varied between -0.15 and -0.2 mm/day. All these ranges are compatible with our results shown in Figure 14 as red lines and with those of Mills et al. (2014, see their Figures 3 and 6). As already mentioned in Section
2.3, the net solar flux anomalies at surface are also consistent. This overall agreement suggests that the inclusion of organic carbon aerosols, and ensuing coagulation with BC, should not dramatically alter the climatic effects resulting from our forced ensemble

Moreover, aerosol growth would likely shorten the residence time of the BC particulate in
simulations.

the atmosphere (Pausata et al., 2016), possibly reducing the duration of these effects.

Warming causes extinction—US example is key.

Fuchs 18 - (Michael H Fuchs, Senior Fellow @ The Center For American Progress, A Former
Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For East Asian and Pacific Affairs And A Guardian Us
Contributing Opinion Writer; 11-29-2018, Guardian, "The ticking bomb of climate change is
America's biggest threat," 8-29-2021) url:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/29/ticking-bomb-climate-change-
america-threat
Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to
detonate across the planet, progressively and in increasing numbers, over the coming years and
decades. The lives of millions would be upended, if not made nearly impossible to survive, by
transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants
as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on. If this
science fiction were reality, US leaders would lead an international effort to immediately disarm
and dismantle the weapons.

But this isn’t science fiction. Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end
human life on earth over the coming centuries. As climate journalist Peter Brannen describes it,
Earth faced a similar crisis hundreds of millions of years ago during the “Great Dying” when
volcanoes spewed so much carbon dioxide into the air – including magma that blanketed an
area as large as the lower 48 US states, 1km deep – that it almost killed all life. Today, Brannen
says, “we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere 10 times faster than the ancient
volcanoes”.

Even in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous. A World Bank
Group report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move within their
countries’ borders by 2050. A report by the Trump administration finds climate change could
reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the
Great Recession – by 2100. Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars. Deadly and
destructive extreme weather events such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria and California’s Camp
fire are mild symptoms of the plague to come.

There is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear
war between great powers – the only thing that could remotely mimic the effects of climate
change over time – is a much lower risk than climate change, which is already happening.

Every year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult. As
America dithers, climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust. If the world
fails to urgently mitigate climate change, no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian
aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans
won’t survive to be the cause of these threats or suffer from them.

America’s failure is not for lack of capacity to safeguard against future threats – the US invests
hundreds of billions of dollars every year in defense to deter adversaries such as Russia and
China, and tens of billions more in intelligence capabilities to monitor threats. Instead, America
is paralyzed by a lack of political will. Donald Trump and his allies in Congress – many of whom
deny the existence of climate change – are making the problem worse. The president
announced his intent to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement and is rolling back
regulations that would have cut emissions.

Despite this dark reality, there is reason for hope. In 2015, the world came together to negotiate
the Paris agreement, which set the goal of limiting global temperature increases to well below
2C. Despite a hostile Trump administration, many US governors, mayors, businesses and private
citizens are already leading the way. So are other countries as they seize the economic and
public health opportunity that comes with a clean energy future.
The path ahead, to say the least, is daunting. Even if the US were not to leave the Paris climate
agreement, the action required to realize its potential is enormous. US policymakers will need
to use every policy tool in their toolbox to drive unprecedented deployment of clean energy
and build out zero-carbon transportation infrastructure. When the US leads by example,
domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will
open.

Only warming is existential.

McDonald 19—(writer and geography PhD student at University of Oxford studying the
intersection of grassroots movements and energy transition). Samuel Miller McDonald. 1/4/19.
“Deathly Salvation”. The Trouble. https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2019/1/4/deathly-
salvation.

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud.
First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of
life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on
shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would
decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear
devices. An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction
may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would
decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure
and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive. In the near
term, emissions would almost certainly rise as militaries are some of the world’s largest
emitters. Given what we know of human history, though, conflict may be the only way to build
the mass social cohesion necessary for undertaking the kind of huge, collective action needed
for global sequestration and energy transition. Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear
exchange could serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing
energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to
renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization,
one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss
particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive
global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows? What we do know is that
humans can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one. Humans cannot
recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable extinction event; six
degrees of warming is.
Climate change causes extinction – feedback loops make adaptation impossible.
Beard et al. 21 (S.J. Beard; Senior Research Associate and Academic Programme Manager at the Centre for the Study of
Existential Risk, S.J. Beard, Lauren Holt, Asaf Tzachor, Luke Kemp, Shahar Avin, Haydn Belfield; Centre for the Study of Existential Risk
research associates, Phil Torres of Torres 16; visiting scholar at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Leibniz Universität
Hannover, Assessing climate change’s contribution to global catastrophic risk, Futures Volume 127, March 2021, 102673,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328720301646#!, MAM)

While most of the impacts of climate change so far have fallen within the range of what was
experienced during the Holocene, the rate of change is faster than in the Holocene and we are
now beginning to see climate change push beyond these boundaries. In the latest edition of the planetary
boundaries’ framework, climate change is placed in the zone of increasing risk, implying that while this boundary has been breached,
there remains some potential for normal functioning and recovery (Steffen et al., 2015). It thus lies
between what the authors identify as the ‘safe zone’ and other ‘high risk’ transgressions, such as disruption to the
biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and loss of biosphere integrity . As part of their
discussion of BRIHN Baum and Handoh (2014) note that climate change is the planetary boundary for which the risk to humanity has
received most meaningful consideration and they suggest that this attention is deserved. Yet little research attention has been paid
to climate change’s extreme or catastrophic effects. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that, despite currently falling outside of the
area of high risk, climate change has the clear potential to push humanity across a threshold of
irreversible loss by “changing major ocean circulation patterns, causing massive sea-level rise,
and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events… that displace people, and ruin
economies.” Even if humanity was resilient to each of these individual impacts, a global
catastrophe could occur if these impacts were to occur rapidly and simultaneously. One scenario
that has received comparatively more attention is that of the global climate crossing a tipping point that would
trigger environmental feedback loops (such as declining albedo from melting ice or the release
of methane from clathrates) and cascading effects (such as shifting rainfall patterns that trigger
desertification and soil erosion). After this point, anthropogenic activity may cease to be the main driver of climate
change, making it accelerate and become harder to stop (King et al., 2015). Other scenarios can be discerned from the numerous
historical cases in which the modest, usually regional, climatic
changes experienced during the Holocene have
been implicated in the collapse of previous societies , including the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku, the Akkadians, the
Western Roman Empire, the lowland Maya, and dozens of others (Diamond, 2005, Fagan, 2008). These provide a
precedent for how a changing climate can trigger or contribute to societal breakdown. At present,
our understanding of this phenomena is limited, and the IPCC has labelled its findings as “low confidence” due to a lack of
understanding of cause and effect and restrictions in historical data (Klein et al., 2014). Further study and cooperation between
archaeologists, historians, climate scientists and global catastrophic risk scholars could overcome some of these limitations by
identifying how the impacts of climate change translate into social transformation and collapse, and hence what the impacts of
more rapid and extreme climatic changes might be. There is also the potential for larger studies into how global climate variations
have coincided with collapse and violence at the regional level (Zhang, Chiyung, Chusheng, Yuanqing, & Fung, 2005; Zhang et al.,
2006). However, these need to be interpreted and generalized with care given the differences between pre-industrial and modern
societies. Societies
also have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate change
induced collapses (McAnany and Yoffee, 2009). However, there are two reasons to be sceptical
that such resilience can be easily extrapolated into the future . First, the relatively stable context
of the Holocene, with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has greatly assisted recovery, while
anthropogenic climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global, and severe. Large-scale states did not
emerge until the onset of the Holocene (Richerson, Boyd, & Bettinger, 2001), and societies have since remained in a surprisingly
narrow climatic niche of roughly 15 mean annual average temperature (Xu, Kohler, Lenton, Svenning, & Scheffer, 2020). A return
to agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyles could thus have more devastating and long-lasting
effects in a world of rapid climate change and ecological disruption (Gowdy, 2020).7 Second, modern
human societies may have developed hidden fragilities that amplify the shocks posed by
climate change (Mannheim 2020) and the complex, tightly-coupled and interdependent nature
of our socio-economic systems makes it more likely that the failure of a few key states or
industries due to climate change could cascade into a global collapse ( Kemp, 2019). A third set
of plausible scenarios stem from climate change’s broader environmental impacts. Apart from being a
planetary boundary of its own, Steffen et al. (2015) point out that climate change is intimately connected with
other planetary boundaries (see Table 1). Climate change is thus identified by the authors as one of two ‘core’ boundaries
with the potential “to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and
persistently transgressed.” This transformative potential was elaborated on in subsequent work exploring how the world
could be pushed towards a ‘Hothouse Earth’ state, even with anthropogenic temperature rises as low as 2 ◦C (Steffen et al., 2018).
The connection between climate change and biosphere integrity (the survival of complex
adaptive ecosystems supporting diverse forms of life) is particularly strong . The IPCC is highly confident
that climate change is adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to desertification and land
degradation in many areas and changing the range, abundance and seasonality of many plant
and animal species (Arneth et al., 2019). Similarly, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has reported that climate change is restricting the range of nearly half the
world’s threatened mammal species and a quarter of threatened birds, with marine, coastal,
and arctic ecosystems worst affected (Diaz et al., 2019). According to one estimate, climate change could
cause 15–37 % of all species to become ‘committed to extinction’ by mid-century (Thomas et al.,
2004). Disruption to biosphere integrity can have profound economic and social repercussions,
ranging from loss of ecosystem services and natural resources to the destruction of traditional
knowledge and livelihoods. For instance, desertification, which threatens a quarter of Earth’s land area and a fifth of the
population, is already estimated to cost developing nations 4–8 % of their GDP (United Nations, 2011). Many other rapid
regime shifts involving loss of biosphere integrity have been observed, including shifts in arid
vegetation, freshwater eutrophication, and the collapse of fish populations (Amano et al. 2020).
There is a theoretical possibility of still more profound regime shifts at the global level (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018).
However, the contribution of loss of biosphere integrity to GCR is yet to be assessed. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that it is
unlikely to threaten human civilization, due both to a lack of plausible mechanisms for this threat and the fact that “local and
regional biodiversity is often staying the same because species from elsewhere replace local losses.” However,
in their
classification of GCRs, Avin et al. (2018) suggest the potential for ecological collapse to threaten
the safety boundaries of multiple critical systems with diverse spread mechanisms at a range of
scales, from the biogeochemical and anatomical to the ecological and sociotechnological . Note that
both these studies were conducted for largely conceptual purposes and should not be taken as rigorous analyses of this risk, this
topic warrants further investigation.

Climate change is a system disruptor and a risk amplifier---only mitigation

prevents biodiversity loss, marine ecosystem collapse, resource wars, global
food scarcity, and extreme weather events. Uniquely—has disparate impacts.

Pachauri & Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC
were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,
151 pp)

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems .
Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in
countries at all levels of development . {2.3}

Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including
hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems ,
including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the
climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some
cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others
are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and
magnitude of climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change
sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with
crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is
important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes
with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}

A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the
21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species
cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high
projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to
keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to
natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic
be high by the observation that
climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past
millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates
and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising
ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly
vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the
global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by
the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in
sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other
ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions ,
climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature
increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global
temperature increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food
demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is
projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical
regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence,
medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}

Until mid-century, projected climate

change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health
problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to
lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low
income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of
high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common
human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}
In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and
ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal
flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high
confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in
exposed areas. {2.3.2}

Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food
security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes , including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food
crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}

Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement),
but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective,
climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction
more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the
latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and
relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2}

Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement).
Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather
events, particularly in developing countries with low income . Climate change can indirectly
increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such
as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}

Climate change is a regressive social inequity

Levy & Patz 15 (Barry S.LevyMD, MPH Jonathan A.PatzMD, MPH, “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Social Justice”,
Annals of Global Health Volume 81, Issue 3, May–June 2015, Pages 310-322)

The environmental and health consequences of climate

change, which disproportionately affect low-income
countries and poor people in high-income countries , profoundly affect human rights and social
justice. Environmental consequences include increased temperature , excess precipitation in some
areas and droughts in others, extreme weather events, and increased sea level. These consequences adversely affect
agricultural production, access to safe water, and worker productivity , and, by inundating land or
making land uninhabitable and uncultivatable , will force many people to become
environmental refugees. Adverse health effects caused by climate change include heat-related disorders,
vector-borne diseases, foodborne and waterborne diseases, respiratory and allergic disorders,
malnutrition, collective violence, and mental health problems.

These environmental and health consequences threaten civil and political rights and economic,
social, and cultural rights, including rights to life, access to safe food and water, health, security,
shelter, and culture. On a national or local level, those people who are most vulnerable to the adverse
environmental and health consequences of climate change include poor people, members of
minority groups, women, children, older people, people with chronic diseases and disabilities,
those residing in areas with a high prevalence of climate-related diseases, and workers exposed to extreme heat or increased
weather variability. On
a global level, there is much inequity, with low-income countries, which produce the
least greenhouse gases (GHGs), being more adversely affected by climate change than high-income
countries, which produce substantially higher amounts of GHGs yet are less immediately
affected. In addition, low-income countries have far less capability to adapt to climate change
than high-income countries.
Warming causes suffering, violence, and eventual uninhabitability---emissions,
ocean acidification, extreme weather, and food shortages
Ripple and Wolf 20, are affiliated with the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at
Oregon State University, in Corvallis and contributed equally to the work. Thomas M. Newsome
is affiliated with the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at The University of Sydney, in
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Phoebe Barnard is affiliated with the Conservation Biology
Institute, in Corvallis, Oregon, and with the African Climate and Development Initiative, at the
University of Cape Town, in Cape Town, South Africa. William R. Moomaw is affiliated with The
Fletcher School and the Global Development and Environment Institute, at Tufts University, in
Medford, Massachusetts. (William & Christopher, 11-5-2019, “World Scientists’ Warning of a
Climate Emergency,” American Institute of Biological Science,
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806)

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to
“tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with
more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that
planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World
Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently necessary to act. Since
then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well
as scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings of insufficient progress (Ripple et al. 2017). Yet greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth's
climate. An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to
avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis (IPCC 2018). Most public discussions on climate
change are based on global surface temperature only , an inadequate measure to capture the
breadth of human activities and the real dangers stemming from a warming planet (Briggs et al.
2015). Policymakers and the public now urgently need access to a set of indicators that convey the
effects of human activities on GHG emissions and the consequent impacts on climate, our
environment, and society. Building on prior work (see supplemental file S2), we present a suite of
graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years for human activities that can affect GHG
emissions and change the climate (figure 1), as well as actual climatic impacts (figure 2). We use only
relevant data sets that are clear, understandable, systematically collected for at least the last 5
years, and updated at least annually.

[Graphs Excluded]
The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle. The most affluent countries are
mainly responsible for the historical GHG emissions and generally have the greatest per capita emissions (table S1). In the
present article, we show general patterns, mostly at the global scale, because there are many climate
efforts that involve individual regions and countries . Our vital signs are designed to be useful to
the public, policymakers, the business community, and those working to implement the Paris
climate agreement, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals , and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. Profoundly troubling signs from human activities include sustained
increases in both human and ruminant livestock populations, per capita meat production, world gross domestic product, global
tree cover loss, fossil fuel consumption, the number of air passengers carried, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
and per capita CO2 emissions since 2000 (figure 1, supplemental file S2). Encouraging signs include
decreases in global fertility (birth) rates (figure 1b), decelerated forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon
(figure 1g), increases in the consumption of solar and wind power (figure 1h), institutional fossil fuel
divestment of more than US$7 trillion (figure 1j), and the proportion of GHG emissions covered by
carbon pricing (figure 1m). However, the decline in human fertility rates has substantially slowed during the last 20 years
(figure 1b), and the pace of forest loss in Brazil's Amazon has now started to increase again (figure 1g). Consumption of solar
and wind energy has increased 373% per decade, but in 2018, it was still 28 times smaller than fossil fuel
consumption (combined gas, coal, oil; figure 1h). As of 2018, approximately 14.0% of global GHG emissions were covered by
carbon pricing (figure 1m), but the global emissions-weighted average price per tonne of carbon dioxide was only around US$15.25
(figure 1n). A much higher carbon fee price is needed (IPCC 2018, section 2.5.2.1). Annual fossil fuel subsidies to energy
companies have been fluctuating, and because of a recent spike , they were greater than US$400
billion in 2018 (figure 1o). Especially disturbing are concurrent trends in the vital signs of climatic impacts (figure 2, supplemental
file S2). Three abundant atmospheric GHGs (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide) continue to increase (see figure S1 for ominous 2019
spike in CO2), as does global surface temperature (figure 2a–2d). Globally, ice has been rapidly disappearing, evidenced by declining
trends in minimum summer Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glacier thickness worldwide (figure 2e–2h). Ocean
heat content, ocean acidity, sea level, area burned in the United States, and extreme weather and associated damage costs have all
been trending upward (figure 2i–2n). Climate change is predicted to greatly affect marine, freshwater, and
terrestrial life, from plankton and corals to fishes and forests (IPCC 2018, 2019). These issues highlight the
urgent need for action. Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally
conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament (figure 1). The climate
crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected (figure 2, IPCC 2018). It is more severe than anticipated,
threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity (IPCC 2019). Especially worrisome are potential
irreversible climate tipping points and nature's reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and
terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic “hothouse Earth,” well beyond the control of humans
(Steffen et al. 2018). These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems,
society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable. To secure a sustainable
future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs. Economic and
population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from
fossil fuel combustion (Pachauri et al. 2014, Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018); therefore, we need bold and drastic
transformations regarding economic and population policies . We suggest six critical and interrelated steps (in
no particular order) that governments, businesses, and the rest of humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change.
These are important steps but are not the only actions needed or possible (Pachauri et al. 2014, IPCC 2018, 2019). Energy
The
world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation practices and must
replace fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables (figure 1h) and other cleaner sources of energy if
safe for people and the environment (figure S2). We should leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in
the ground (see the timelines in IPCC 2018) and should carefully pursue effective negative emissions
using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and capture from the air and especially
by enhancing natural systems (see “Nature” section). Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in
transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must swiftly eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels (figure 1o) and use effective and
fair policies for steadily escalating carbon prices to restrain their use. Short-lived pollutants We need to promptly reduce
the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, including methane (figure 2b), black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Doing this could slow climate feedback loops and potentially reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50% over the next
few decades while saving millions of lives and increasing crop yields due to reduced air pollution (Shindell et al. 2017). The 2016
Kigali amendment to phase down HFCs is welcomed. Nature We must protect and restore Earth's ecosystems.
Phytoplankton, coral reefs, forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, peatlands, soils, mangroves, and sea grasses contribute greatly
to sequestration of atmospheric CO2. Marine and terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms play significant roles in carbon and
nutrient cycling and storage. We
need to quickly curtail habitat and biodiversity loss (figure 1f–1g),
protecting the remaining primary and intact forests , especially those with high carbon stores and
other forests with the capacity to rapidly sequester carbon (proforestation), while increasing reforestation and
afforestation where appropriate at enormous scales. Although available land may be limiting in places, up to a third of emissions
reductions needed by 2030 for the Paris agreement (less than 2°C) could be obtained with these natural climate solutions (Griscom
et al. 2017). Food Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d),
especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including
methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food
instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section). Cropping
practices such as minimum tillage that increase soil carbon are vitally important. We need to drastically reduce the enormous
amount of food waste around the world. Economy Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by
economic growth, must be quickly curtailed to maintain long-term sustainability of the biosphere. We
need a carbon-free
economy that explicitly addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide
economic decisions accordingly. Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining
ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality. Population Still increasing by
roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and,
ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen
human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss.
These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity,
including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018).
Conclusions Mitigating
and adapting to climate change while honoring the diversity of humans
entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems. We are
encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency
declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen
movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and
businesses are responding. As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-
makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of
vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand
the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The
good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than
does business as usual. We
believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of
humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to
sustain life on planet Earth, our only home .
 Outweighs Everything Else

cumulative disjunctive existential risk across a litany of direct and indirect

impacts mathematically outweighs any other X-risk
Dr. Yew-Kwang Ng 19, Winsemius Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technological University,
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of Advisory Board at the
Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, PhD in Economics from Sydney University,
“Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism”, Global
Policy, Volume 10, Number 2, May 2019, pp. 258–266

Catastrophic climate change

Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non-
linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical thresholds and
tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev et al., 2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012;
IPCC 2014; Kareiva and Carranza, 2018; Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman, 2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016;
Van Aalst, 2006).7

A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that]
could cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p. 399). There are many avenues for positive
feedback in global warming, including:

• the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the
reflection and increases the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;

• the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more carbon; and

• higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the ocean floor,
producing runaway global warming.

Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall
net positive feedback (Roe and Baker, 2007). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p. 25) concludes, ‘The
world is currently completely unprepared

[[marked]

to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’.The threat of sea-level rising from global
warming is well known, but there are also other likely and more imminent threats to the
survivability of mankind and other living things. For example , Sherwood and Huber (2010) emphasize the
adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high environmental wet-bulb
temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could ... expose large fractions of the [world]
population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming, ‘the
area of land rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’
p. 9555, making extinction much more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated
assessment models unreliably low.

While imminent extinction is very unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main
point is that we cannot rule it out. Annan and Hargreaves (2011, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper
95 per cent probability limit for S [temperature increase] ... to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well
below 6°C’. However, probabilities of 5 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 0.05 per cent or even 0.005 per
cent of excessive warming and the resulting extinction probabilities cannot be ruled out and are
unacceptable. Even if there is only a 1 per cent probability that there is a time bomb in the
airplane, you probably want to change your flight. Extinction of the whole world is
more important to avoid by literally a trillion times.
Climate change causes extinction and turns their impacts – death spirals make
resilience impossible
Beard et al. 21 [S.J. Beard, Lauren Holt, Asaf Tzachor, Luke Kemp, Shahar Avin, Phil Torres,
and Haydn Belfield, * Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, “Assessing climate change’s
contribution to global catastrophic risk,” 2021, Futures, Vol. 127,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102673, EA – Table 1 & Fig. 2 Omitted]
3.1. Climate change and planetary boundaries

While most of the impacts of climate change so far have fallen within the range of what was
experienced during the Holocene, the rate of change is faster than in the Holocene and we are now beginning to
see climate change push beyond these boundaries. In the latest edition of the planetary boundaries’ framework,
climate change is placed in the zone of increasing risk, implying that while this boundary has been breached, there remains some
potential for normal functioning and recovery (Steffen et al., 2015). It thus lies between what the authors identify as the ‘safe zone’
and other ‘high risk’ transgressions, such as disruption to the biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and loss of biosphere
integrity.

As part of their discussion of BRIHN Baum and Handoh (2014) note that climate change is the planetary boundary for which the risk
to humanity has received most meaningful consideration and they suggest that this attention is deserved. Yet little research
attention has been paid to climate change’s extreme or catastrophic effects. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that, despite
currently falling outside of the area of high risk, climate
change has the clear potential to push humanity
across a threshold of irreversible loss by “changing major ocean circulation patterns, causing
massive sea-level rise, and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events… that displace
people, and ruin economies.” Even if humanity was resilient to each of these individual impacts, a global
catastrophe could occur if these impacts were to occur rapidly and simultaneously.

One scenario that has received comparatively more attention is that of the global
climate crossing a tipping point that
would trigger environmental feedback loops (such as declining albedo from melting ice or the
release of methane from clathrates) and cascading effects (such a shifting rainfall patterns that trigger
desertification and soil erosion). After this point, anthropogenic activity may cease to be the
main driver of climate change, making it accelerate and become harder to stop (King et al., 2015).
Other scenarios can be discerned from the numerous historical cases in which the modest, usually regional, climatic changes
experienced during the Holocene have been implicated in the collapse of previous societies, including the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku, the
Akkadians, the Western Roman Empire, the lowland Maya, and dozens of others (Diamond, 2005, Fagan, 2008). These provide a
precedent for how a changing climate can trigger or contribute to societal breakdown. At present, our
understanding of this phenomena is limited, and the IPCC has labelled its findings as “low confidence” due to a lack of understanding
of cause and effect and restrictions in historical data (Klein et al., 2014). Further study and cooperation between archaeologists,
historians, climate scientists and global catastrophic risk scholars could overcome some of these limitations by identifying how the
impacts of climate change translate into social transformation and collapse, and hence what the impacts of more rapid and extreme
climatic changes might be. There is also the potential for larger studies into how global climate variations have coincided with
collapse and violence at the regional level (Zhang, Chiyung, Chusheng, Yuanqing, & Fung, 2005; Zhang et al., 2006). However, these
need to be interpreted and generalized with care given the differences between pre-industrial and modern societies.
Societies also have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate change induced collapses (McAnany and Yoffee,
2009). However, there are two reasons to be sceptical that such resilience can be easily extrapolated into
the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene , with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has
greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global,
and severe. Large-scale states did not emerge until the onset of the Holocene (Richerson, Boyd, & Bettinger, 2001), and
societies have since remained in a surprisingly narrow climatic niche of roughly 15 mean annual average
temperature (Xu, Kohler, Lenton, Svenning, & Scheffer, 2020). A return to agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyles could thus have
more devastating and long-lasting effects in a world of rapid climate change and ecological disruption (Gowdy, 2020).7 Second,
modern human societies may have developed hidden fragilities that amplify the shocks posed by
climate change (Mannheim 2020) and the complex, tightly-coupled and interdependent nature of
our socio-economic systems makes it more likely that the failure of a few key states or industries
due to climate change could cascade into a global collapse (Kemp, 2019).

A third set of plausible scenarios stem from climate change’s broader environmental impacts. Apart from being a planetary
boundary of its own, Steffen et al. (2015) point out that climate change is intimately connected with other
planetary boundaries (see Table 1). Climate change is thus identified by the authors as one of two ‘core’ boundaries with
the potential “to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.” This
transformative potential was elaborated on in subsequent work exploring how the world could be pushed towards a ‘Hothouse
Earth’ state, even with anthropogenic temperature rises as low as 2 °C (Steffen et al., 2018).

The connection between climate change and biosphere integrity (the survival of complex adaptive
ecosystems supporting diverse forms of life) is particularly strong. The IPCC is highly confident that climate change is
adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to desertification and land degradation in many areas and changing the
range, abundance and seasonality of many plant and animal species (Arneth et al., 2019). Similarly, the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has reported that climate change is restricting the range of nearly half
the world’s threatened mammal species and a quarter of threatened birds, with marine, coastal, and arctic ecosystems worst
affected (Diaz et al., 2019). According to one estimate, climate change could cause 15–37 % of all species to
become ‘committed to extinction’ by mid-century (Thomas et al., 2004).

Disruption to biosphere integrity can have profound economic and social repercussions, ranging
from loss of ecosystem services and natural resources to the destruction of traditional
knowledge and livelihoods. For instance, desertification, which threatens a quarter of Earth’s land area and a fifth of the
population, is already estimated to cost developing nations 4–8 % of their GDP (United Nations, 2011). Many other rapid regime
shifts involving loss of biosphere integrity have been observed, including shifts in arid vegetation, freshwater eutrophication, and the
collapse of fish populations (Amano et al. 2020). There is a theoretical possibility of still more profound regime shifts at the global
level (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018). However, the contribution of loss of biosphere integrity to GCR is yet to be assessed.
Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that it is unlikely to threaten human civilization, due both to a lack of plausible mechanisms for
this threat and the fact that “local and regional biodiversity is often staying the same because species from elsewhere replace local
losses.” However, in their classification of GCRs, Avin et al. (2018) suggest the potential for ecological collapse to threaten the safety
boundaries of multiple critical systems with diverse spread mechanisms at a range of scales, from the biogeochemical and
anatomical to the ecological and sociotechnological. Note that both these studies were conducted for largely conceptual purposes
and should not be taken as rigorous analyses of this risk, this topic warrants further investigation.

3.2. Classifying climate change’s contributions to global catastrophic risk

Climate change’s contribution to GCR goes well beyond its impact on the earth system. Taking Avin et al.’s list of critical systems, we
note that previous studies have mostly focused on the effects of climate change on physical and biogeochemical systems (e.g. global
temperature and sea-level rise) or the lower-level critical systems that are most directly related to human health and survival (e.g.
Heath Stress). However, these represent a very limited assessment of risk as it only accounts for climate change as a direct hazard/
threat and our "ontological" vulnerabilities to it. A more comprehensive risk assessment must consider the higher-order critical
systems threatened by climate change passively (through a lack of alternatives) and actively (through intentional design).

The probability of a global catastrophe is higher when sociotechnological and environmental

systems are tightly coupled, creating a potential for reinforcing feedback loops. If environmental change
produces social changes that perpetuate further environmental change, then this could actively work against our efforts at
adaptation. When this change has the potential to produce significant harm, via human vulnerabilities and exposure, we describe
such loops as ‘global
systems death spirals.’ These spirals could produce self-perpetuating catastrophes ,
whereby the energy and resources required to reverse or adapt to collapse are beyond the means of
dwindling human societies. Feedback loops like this could thus create tipping points beyond which returning to
anything like present conditions would become extremely difficult. Global systems would shift to very different states in which the
prospects for humanity would likely be bleaker.

In the rest of this section, we explore just one potential spiral, between an ecological system (the biosphere) and two
sociotechnological systems (the human food and global political systems). We explore each system and its interactions. Fig. 2
illustrates our model of this spiral.

3.2.1. The human food system

Climate change’s impact on biosphere integrity (discussed in the previous section) could harm the human
food system due to loss of ecosystem services, disruption of the cycles of water, nitrogen and
phosphates, and changes in the dynamics of plant and animal health (B´elanger & Pilling, 2019). Crossing
this planetary boundary is already having severe implications for global food security, including loss
of soil fertility and insect-mediated pollination (Diaz et al., 2019).

Systems for the production and allocation of food are already enduring significant stress. The sources of stress include climate
change, soil erosion, water scarcity, and phosphorus depletion. The natural resource base, arable land and freshwater upon which
food production rely are being degraded. While
global food productivity and production has increased
dramatically over the past century to meet rising demand from an expanding global population and rising standard of
living, these constraints and risks are increasing the vulnerability of our global food supply to rapid
and global disruptions that could constitute global catastrophes (Baum, Denkenberger, Pearce, Robock, &
Winkler, 2015).

Climate change will further reduce food security in at least three interconnected ways. First, it will affect growing
conditions, including direct threats to agricultural yields from heat, humidity, and precipitation in
many regions; although initially improving conditions in some (Lott, Christidis, & Stott, 2013). Second, it will increase the range
of agricultural pests and diseases (Harvell et al., 2002). Third, it will increase the occurrence of extreme
weather events that impair the integrity of food production and distribution networks , from
production to harvest, post-harvest, transport, storage, and distribution, thereby increasing our vulnerability and
exposure to supply shocks (Bailey et al., 2015). The IPCC estimates, with medium confidence, that at around 2 °C of global
warming the risk from permafrost degradation and food supply instabilities will be ‘very high’, while at around 3 °C of global
warming the risk from vegetation loss, wildfire damage, and dryland water scarcity will also be very high (Arneth et al., 2019). Very
few studies have considered the impacts of 4 °C of global warming or more; however, the IPCC highlighted one study finding that
any potential agricultural gains from climate change will be lost by this point and there could be a decrease of 19 % in maize yields
and 68 % in bean yields in Africa, an 8 % reduction in yields in South Asia, and a substantial negative impact on fisheries by 2050
(Porter et al., 2014). Furthermore, multiple extreme weather events could disrupt food distribution networks (Bailey and Wellesley,
2017).

While there are opportunities to adapt, disruption to the entire global food system cannot be resolved via food aid alone. Indeed,
there is the potential for isolationist or heavy-handed responses that would do more harm than good.
Given the high degree of interconnectivity and feedback within the global food system, our initial research suggests that any one
of these climate change effects could trigger scenarios that would critically undermine the global
food system’s ability to meet the minimum nutrition for well-being; making food security for all an unachievable goal, let alone
rise to the challenge of continuing to grow (A. Tzachor, 2019, 2020); this would constitute what Kuhlemann (2019) terms a
‘threshold of significance.’

3.2.2. The global political system

Disrupting the global food system can create and exacerbate conflict and state failure (Brinkman &
Hendrix, 2011). However, once again, this needs to be seen against the backdrop of a global political system under stress, with
climate change as a significant contributing factor. Climate change influences political systems in many ways, from being a locus of
activism and a stimulus for reform to driving rising inequality and population displacement (Arneth et al., 2019; Diffenbaugh &
Burke, 2019). This is not a new phenomenon, changes in the climate are believed to have contributed to conflict between people
and states throughout human history, driven by resource scarcity, population displacement, and inequality (Lee, 2009; Mach et al.,
2019). As part of a comprehensive risk assessment of climate change, King et al. (2015) conducted anextensive literature
review on climate change and conflict and used this to inform a series of international wargaming exercises. These found that
climate change is expected to increase international conflict while highlighting the role that population
displacement, state failure, and water and food insecurity would play in this (see also Mach et al., 2019; Natalini, Jones, & Bravo,
2015).

Quantitative studies of the impact of climate change on violence and conflict have provided more mixed results. A survey of
empirical studies by Detges (2017) found that there may be multiple differing trends: extreme weather events appear to have more
significant effects on violence than do long-term climate trends, while levels of small-scale conflict and interpersonal violence appear
to be more affected than large-scale conflicts and international war. Empirical studies also highlight how climate change’s impact on
conflict is predominantly as a risk multiplier and intensifier. Thus, climate
change may contribute more by increasing our
vulnerability to other conflict-inducing factors, such as loss of livelihood, forced migration,
environmental change, and food insecurity, than by acting as a direct cause of conflict (Abel, Brottrager, Cuaresma,
& Muttarak, 2019; Hsiang, Burke, & Miguel, 2013; Schubert et al., 2008).8

Of particular relevance to GCR is the effect of climate change on the risk of nuclear war (Parthemore, Femia, & Werrell, 2018).
However, to our knowledge, this has never been rigorously assessed, although the potential is certainly there. One recent model of
the risk of nuclear war highlighted how varied, and common, incidents with the potential to trigger a nuclear exchange are (Baum,
de Neufville, & Barrett, 2018). It outlined 14 different causal pathways to an exchange, including the escalation of conventional wars
and international crises, human error, and the emergence of new non-state actors. For all but two of these, they identify historical
examples of potentially precipitating incidents, with 60 incidents in total (i.e. a little less than one a year). This suggests that the
absence of nuclear war was less due to a lack of potential causes, tan the global political system’s ability
to defuse them. Thus, the real significance of climate change may be its capacity to undermine this system:
the combination of social, political, and environmental disruption, a lingering sense of global injustice, and
rising food, water, and energy insecurity could increase the probability that crises escalate or
that false alarms are mistaken for genuine emergencies. This topic needs further research.
3.3. The emergence of a global systems death spiral

Yet, we should not conclude that a nuclear exchange is the only, or even most likely, scenario in which
political instability might produce a global catastrophe. Conflict and political instability, even of
moderate severity, are themselves two of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss due to
breakdowns in monitoring, governance, and (public and private) property rights (Baynham-Herd, Amano, Sutherland, &
Donald, 2018). This closes a potentially reinforcing feedback loop between loss of biosphere integrity, food insecurity and political
breakdown.

The mechanisms by which these cascading failures might spread include many of the natural, anthropogenic,
and replicator effects identified by Avin et al. (2018), making them harder to contain. At the natural level, climate
change involves changes to the global atmospheric and biogeochemical systems and poses other
naturally spreading harms, like global ecological collapse. At the anthropogenic level, the global
interconnectedness of sociotechnological systems means that while small shocks are easier to recover from,
larger shocks can be harder to contain and control. Finally, biological and informational replication
can also spread the negative impacts of climate change, from vector-borne diseases and invasive species to
climate fatalism and dangerous geoengineering technologies.

Given these numerous spread mechanisms, critical system failures could precipitate global
catastrophes. Furthermore, the spiral we have explored is unlikely to be the only set of interlinked systemic disruptions that
climate change could initiate (other death spirals could involve bio-insecurity and disease), nor are these the only causal connections
between these three systems. Until we understand the nature of such death spirals better, we must act cautiously. We now turn to
consider what this would mean.
Warming causes extinction – global nuclear conflagration.
Michael Klare 20. The Nation’s defense correspondent, professor emeritus of peace and world-
security studies at Hampshire College, senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. “How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood of Nuclear War”. The
Nation. Jan 13 2020. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-defense-climate-
change/
President Donald Trump may not accept the scientific reality of climate change, but the nation’s senior military leaders recognize
that climate disruption is already underway, and they are planning extraordinary measures to prevent it from spiraling into nuclear
war. One particularly worrisome scenario is if extreme drought and abnormal monsoon rains
devastate agriculture and unleash social chaos in Pakistan, potentially creating an opening for
radical Islamists aligned with elements of the armed forces to seize some of the country’s 150 or so nuclear weapons.
To avert such a potentially cataclysmic development, the US Joint Special Operations Command has conducted
exercises for infiltrating Pakistan and locating the country’s nuclear munitions. Most of the necessary equipment for
such raids is already in position at US bases in the region, according to a 2011 report from the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.
“It’s safe to assume that planning for the worst-case scenario regarding Pakistan’s nukes has already taken place inside the US
government,” said Roger Cressey, a former deputy director for counterterrorism in Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s
administrations in 2011.

Such an attack by the United States would be an act of war and would entail enormous risks of escalation, especially since the
Pakistani military—the country’s most powerful institution—views the nation’s nuclear arsenal as its most prized possession and
would fiercely resist any US attempt to disable it. “These are assets which are the pride of Pakistan, assets which are…guarded by a
corps of 18,000 soldiers,” former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told NBC News in 2011. The Pakistani military “is not an army
which doesn’t know how to fight. This is an army that has fought three wars. Please understand that.”

A potential US military incursion in nuclear-armed Pakistan is just one example of a crucial but
little-discussed aspect of international politics in the early 21st century: how the acceleration of
climate change and nuclear war planning may make those threats to human survival harder to
defuse. At present, the intersections between climate change and nuclear war might not seem obvious. But powerful forces are
pushing both threats toward their most destructive outcomes.

In the case of climate change, the

unbridled emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is raising
global temperatures to unmistakably dangerous levels. Despite growing worldwide reliance on wind and solar
power for energy generation, the global demand for oil and natural gas continues to rise, and carbon emissions are projected to
remain on an upward trajectory for the foreseeable future. It
is highly unlikely, then, that the increase in average
global temperature can be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius , the aspirational goal adopted by the world’s
governments under the Paris Agreement in 2015, or even to 2°C, the actual goal. After that threshold is crossed,
scientists agree, it will prove almost impossible to avert catastrophic outcomes , such as the collapse
of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and a resulting sea level rise of 6 feet or more.

Climbing world temperatures and rising sea levels will diminish the supply of food and water in
many resource-deprived areas, increasing the risk of widespread starvation, social unrest, and human flight .
Global corn production, for example, is projected to fall by as much as 14 percent in a 2°C warmer world, according to research cited
in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Food
scarcity and crop failures
risk pushing hundreds of millions of people into overcrowded cities, where the likelihood of
pandemics, ethnic strife, and severe storm damage is bound to increase. All of this will impose
an immense burden on human institutions . Some states may collapse or break up into a collection of
warring chiefdoms—all fighting over sources of water and other vital resources.

A similar momentum is now evident in the emerging nuclear arms race, with all three major powers—China, Russia, and the United
States—rushing to deploy a host of new munitions. This dangerous process commenced a decade ago, when Russian and Chinese
leaders sought improvements to their nuclear arsenals and President Barack Obama, in order to secure Senate approval of the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010, agreed to initial funding for the modernization of all three legs of America’s strategic triad,
which encompasses submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and bombers. (New START, which mandated significant
reductions in US and Russian arsenals, will expire in February 2021 unless renewed by the two countries.) Although Obama initiated
the modernization of the nuclear triad, the Trump administration has sought funds to proceed with their full-scale production, at an
estimated initial installment of $500 billion over 10 years.

Even during the initial modernization program of the Obama era, Russian and Chinese leaders were sufficiently alarmed to hasten
their own nuclear acquisitions. Both countries were already in the process of modernizing their stockpiles—Russia to replace Cold
War–era systems that had become unreliable, China to provide its relatively small arsenal with enhanced capabilities. Trump’s
decision to acquire a whole new suite of ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and bombers has added momentum to these efforts.
And with all three major powers upgrading their arsenals , the other nuclear-weapon states—led by
India, Pakistan, and North Korea—have been expanding their stockpiles as well. Moreover, with Trump’s recent
decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, all major powers are developing missile
delivery systems for a regional nuclear war such as might erupt in Europe, South Asia, or the western Pacific.

All things being equal, risingtemperatures will increase the likelihood of nuclear war, largely because
climate change will heighten the risk of social stress, the decay of nation-states, and armed
violence in general, as I argue in my new book, All Hell Breaking Loose. As food and water supplies dwindle
and governments come under ever-increasing pressure to meet the vital needs of their populations, disputes
over critical resources are likely to become more heated and violent, whether the parties involved have
nuclear arms or not. But this danger is compounded by the possibility that several nuclear-armed powers
—notably India, Pakistan, and China—will break apart as a result of climate change and
accompanying battles over disputed supplies of water.

Together, these three countries are projected by the UN Population Division to number approximately 3.4 billion
people in 2050, or 34 percent of the world’s population. Yet they possess a much smaller share of the world’s
freshwater supplies, and climate change is destined to reduce what they have even further. Warmer
temperatures are also expected to diminish crop yields in these countries, adding to the desperation of farmers and very
likely resulting in widespread ethnic strife and population displacement . Under these circumstances,
climate-related internal turmoil would increase the risk of nuclear war in two ways: by enabling
the capture of nuclear arms by rogue elements of the military and their possible use against perceived enemies
and by inciting wars between these states over vital supplies of water and other critical
resources.
The risk to Pakistan from climate change is thought to be particularly acute. A large part of the population is still engaged in
agriculture, and much of the best land—along with access to water—is controlled by wealthy landowners (who also dominate
national politics). Water scarcity and mismanagement is a perennial challenge, and climate change is bound to make the problem
worse. Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis, a 2013 report by the National Research Council for the US
intelligence community, highlights the danger of chaos and conflict in that country as global warming advances. Pakistan, the report
notes, is expected to suffer from inadequate water supplies during the dry season and severe flooding during the monsoon—
outcomes that will devastate its agriculture and amplify the poverty and unrest already afflicting much of the country. “The Pakistan
case,” the report reads, “illustrates how a highly stressed environmental system on which a tense society depends can be a source of
political instability and how that source can intensify when climate events put increased stress on the system.” Thus, as global
temperatures rise and agriculture declines, Pakistan could shatter along ethnic, class, and religious lines, precisely the scenario that
might trigger the sort of intervention anticipated by the US Joint Special Operations Command.

Assuming that Pakistan remains intact, another great danger arising from increasing world temperatures is a conflict between it and
India or between China and India over access to shared river systems. Whatever their differences, Pakistan
and western India
are forced by geography to share a single river system, the Indus , for much of their water requirements.
Likewise, western China and eastern India also share a river , the Brahmaputra, for their vital water needs. The
Indus and the Brahmaputra obtain much of their flow from periods of heavy precipitation; they also depend on
meltwater from Himalayan glaciers, and these are at risk of melting because of rising temperatures.
According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers could lose as much as 29 percent of their total mass by 2035 and 78 percent by 2100.
This would produce periodic flooding as the ice melts but would eventually result in long periods of negligible
flow, with calamitous consequences for downstream agriculture. The widespread starvation and chaos
that could result would prove daunting to all the governments involved and make any water-related disputes
between them a potential flash point for escalation.
As in Pakistan, water supply has always played a pivotal role in the social and economic life of China and India, with both countries
highly dependent on a few major river systems for civic and agricultural purposes. Excessive rainfall can lead to catastrophic
flooding, and prolonged drought has often led to widespread famine and mass starvation. In such a setting, water management has
always been a prime responsibility of government—and a failure to fulfill this function effectively has often resulted in civil unrest.
Climate change is bound to increase this danger by causing prolonged water shortages interspersed with severe flooding. This has
prompted leaders of both countries to build ever more dams on all key rivers.

India, as the upstream power on several tributaries of the Indus, and China, as the upstream power on the Brahmaputra, have
considered damming these rivers and diverting their waters for exclusive national use, thereby diminishing the flow to downstream
users. Three of the Indus’s principal tributaries, the Jhelum, Chenab, and Ravi rivers, flow through Indian-controlled Kashmir (now in
total lockdown, with government forces suppressing all public functions). It’s possible that India seeks full control of Kashmir in order
to dam the tributaries there and divert their waters from Pakistan—a move that could easily trigger a war if it occurs at a time of
severe food and water stress and one that would very likely invite the use of nuclear weapons, given Pakistan’s attitude toward
them.

The situation regarding the Brahmaputra could prove equally precarious. China has already installed one dam on the river, the
Zangmu Dam in Tibet, and has announced plans for several more. Some Chinese hydrologists have proposed the construction of
canals linking the Brahmaputra to more northerly rivers in China, allowing the diversion of its waters to drought-stricken areas of the
heavily populated northeast. These plans have yet to come to fruition, but as global warming increases water scarcity across
northern China, Beijing might proceed with the idea. “If China was determined to move forward with such a scheme,” the US
National Intelligence Council warned in 2009, “it could become a major element in pushing China and India towards an adversarial
rather than simply a competitive relationship.”

Severe water scarcity in northern China could prompt yet another move with nuclear implications: an
attempted annexation by China of largely uninhabited but water-rich areas of Russian Siberia. Thousands of Chinese
farmers and merchants have already taken up residence in eastern Siberia, and some commentators have spoken of a time when
climate change prompts a formal Chinese takeover of those areas— which
would almost certainly prompt fierce
Russian resistance and the possible use of nuclear weapons.

In the Arctic, global warming is producing a wholly different sort of peril: geopolitical competition and
conflict made possible by the melting of the polar ice cap . Before long, the Arctic ice cap is expected to
disappear in summertime and to shrink noticeably in the winter, making the region more attractive for resource
extraction. According to the US Geological Survey, an estimated 30 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered natural gas is
above the Arctic Circle; vast reserves of iron ore, uranium, and rare earth minerals are also thought to be buried there. These
resources, along with the appeal of faster commercial shipping routes linking Europe and Asia, have induced all the
major powers, including China, to establish or expand operations in the region. Russia has rehabilitated numerous
Arctic bases abandoned after the Cold War and built others; the United States has done likewise, modernizing its radar installation at
Thule in Greenland, reoccupying an airfield at Keflavík in Iceland, and establishing bases in northern Norway.

Increased economic
and military competition in the Arctic has significant nuclear implications, as
numerous weapons are deployed there and geography lends it a key role in many nuclear scenarios. Most of Russia’s
missile-carrying submarines are based near Murmansk, on the Barents Sea (an offshoot of the Arctic Ocean), and many of its
nuclear-armed bombers are also at bases in the region to take advantage of the short polar route to North America. As a
counterweight, the Pentagon has deployed additional subs and antisubmarine aircraft near the Barents Sea and interceptor aircraft
in Alaska, followed by further measures by Moscow. “I do not want to stoke any fears here,” Russian President Vladimir Putin
declared in June 2017, “but experts are aware that US nuclear submarines remain on duty in northern Norway…. We must protect
[Russia’s] shore accordingly.”

On the other side of the equation, an intensifying arms race will block progress against climate change by siphoning resources
needed for a global energy transition and by poisoning the relations among the great powers, impeding joint efforts to slow the
warming.
With the signing of the Paris Agreement, it appeared that the great powers might unite in a global effort to slash greenhouse gas
emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophe, but those hopes have since receded. At the time, Obama emphasized that limiting
global warming would require nations to work together in an environment of trust and peaceful cooperation. Instead of leading the
global transition to a postcarbon energy system, however, the major powers are spending massively to enhance their military
capabilities and engaging in conflict-provoking behaviors.

Since fiscal year 2016, the annual budget of the US Department of Defense has risen from $580 billion to $738 billion in fiscal year
2020. When the budget increases for each fiscal year since 2016 are combined, the United States will have spent an additional $380
billion on military programs by the end of this fiscal year—more than enough to jump-start the transition to a carbon-free economy.
If the Pentagon budget rises as planned to $747 billion in fiscal year 2024, a total of $989 billion in additional spending will have
been devoted to military operations and procurement over this period, leaving precious little money for a Green New Deal or any
other scheme for systemic decarbonization.

Meanwhile, policy-makers in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow increasingly regard one another as implacable and dangerous
adversaries. “As China and Russia seek to expand their global influence,” then–Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats informed
Congress in a January 2019 report, “they are eroding once well-established security norms and increasing the risk of regional
conflicts.” Chinese and Russian officials have been making similar statements about the United States. Secondary powers like India,
Pakistan, and Turkey are also assuming increasingly militaristic postures, facilitating the potential spread of nuclear weapons and
exacerbating regional tensions. In this environment, it is almost impossible to imagine future climate negotiations at which the great
powers agree on concrete measures for a rapid transition to a clean energy economy.

In a world constantly poised for nuclear war while facing widespread state decay from climate
disruption, these twin threats would intermingle and intensify each other. Climate-related
resource stresses and disputes would increase the level of global discord and the risk of nuclear
escalation; the nuclear arms race would poison relations between states and make a global energy transition impossible.
 Linear Impacts

Each tenth of a degree matters and saves millions of lives

Aronoff & Denvir 21 [Kate, staff writer at the New Republic, writing fellow at In These Times, Daniel, visiting fellow in
International and Public Affairs at Brown Univ, “Capitalism Can’t Fix the Climate Crisis,” Jacobin, 08/25/21,
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/capitalism-climate-crisis-global-green-new-deal-clean-energy-fossil-fuel-industry, accessed
08/26/21, JCR]

The text of the Paris Agreement says that warming should be constrained to well below two
degrees Celsius. 1.5 degrees is an aspiration. It’s good to understand where that demand comes from; it
has been a standing call from the folks in climate-vulnerable countries in the Global South, for whom the
difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is huge. The folks talking about 1.5 degrees have been marching through the
halls of UN climate talks, chanting “1.5 to survive,” because for low-lying island states, warming of 1.5 degrees
represents an existential threat. Currently we are on track for about 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming.
That gives us a punishingly short window in which to meet even two degrees, which is a bit of a fabrication; there’s some debate
about where the two-degree target came from. Some people credit that to the economist William Nordhaus, who is not the most
reliable source on a lot of these things. But there’s something comforting about a target. There’s something comforting about saying
that this thing that is happening is far-off, and that we can potentially avoid it. We have a bit of time, and two degrees gives us more
time than 1.5 degrees. Reaching targets has been the popular goal. That’s what you see in the fossil fuel industry assessments. But
the conversation about targets can sometimes obscure what’s actually happening. It’s not as if somebody who is living through a
hurricane or a natural disaster will say, “Oh no, we’ve hit two degrees Celsius.” The
climate crisis is playing out all
around us. There’s not a point at which we cross the boundary toward a disastrous future. Every tenth of a degree of
warming that we avoid makes an enormous amount of difference, saving on the order of tens of thousands
of lives. If we cross 1.5 or even two degrees of warming, it’s not that we should all pack up , go
home, and wait to die. There are still millions of lives that can be saved by preventing each
additional tenth of a degree of warming.

Every ½ degree beyond 1.5 degrees puts hundreds of millions at-risk

Gallagher, January-February 2022, KELLY SIMS GALLAGHER is Academic Dean, Professor of

Energy and Environmental Policy, and Director of the Climate Policy Lab at Tuft University’s
Fletcher School. She served as Senior Policy Adviser in the White House’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy during the Obama administration, The Coming Carbon Tsunami, Developing
Countries Need a New Growth Model—Before It’s Too Late,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/coming-carbon-tsunami

Although world leaders have announced their intention to limit the global temperature rise to
1.5 degrees Celsius, the planet is currently on track to experience warming far in excess of that
level. The consequences of this will be devastating: according to the latest report by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every additional 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming
beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will cause “clearly discernible increases in the intensity and
frequency of hot extremes . . . as well as agricultural and ecological droughts.” In the event of
two degrees Celsius warming, extreme heat waves that normally would have occurred only
once in 50 years will likely occur 14 times during the same time frame. Three hundred and fifty
million more people risk being be exposed to deadly heat: residents of Karachi, Pakistan, and
Kolkata, India, for example, could experience, on an annual basis, conditions like those of the
heat wave that struck the Indian subcontinent in 2015, which killed thousands. These changes
will afflict the developed and the developing world alike; there is no alternative but to
collaborate to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
 1.5C Impacts

Food for 1.5 billion will be lost if temperatures hit 1.5C

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

Depending on what actions humanity takes to tackle climate change, 50-75% of the global
population could face “life-threatening” extreme heat by the end of the century, the IPCC says.
Tropical coral reefs, which provide food or income to half a billion people, are projected to
disappear if temperatures exceed 1.5C, the aspiration of the Paris Agreement.

The world’s most marginalised communities are suffering disproportionately from the impacts
of climate change. This is despite the fact that most emissions come from a wealthy few. Carbon
Brief analysis shows the US and Europe have together produced nearly half of all the CO2 that
has been released into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era.

We need to act now to limit climate change to 1.5C or there will be catastrophic
impacts

National Public Radio, April 4, 2022, It's not too late to stave off the climate crisis, U.N. report
finds. Here's how,

The world still has time to avoid the most extreme dangers of climate change, but only if
nations cut greenhouse gas pollution much faster from nearly every aspect of human activity, according to a
landmark international climate science report. The technology and solutions are available to rein in emissions, but
the world is rapidly running out of time to deploy them, the report notes. "It's now or never," says Jim Skea, professor of
sustainable energy at Imperial College London and one of the co-chairs overseeing the report. "Without immediate and deep
emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible. " The report issued on Monday is the latest by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body that brings together the world's researchers to assess the prevailing science
on planetary warming. The new report looks at worldwide efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and recommends next steps to
keep global average temperatures from rising to catastrophic levels. Nations and industries need to make faster, deeper cuts to
heat-trapping pollution. Average annual greenhouse gasses in the last decade were the highest in
human history, which means the world is not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the report says. With warming beyond that level, the planet will see
increasingly dangerous heat waves, floods and storms that would affect millions of people,
especially the most vulnerable. As a crucial near-term step, "substantial reduction" in the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil
and natural gas would need to happen, the report finds. By 2050, low-carbon energy like solar and wind power will need to supply
the majority of the world's energy. Experts say this report, part of a scientific assessment done roughly every seven years by the
IPCC, is likely the last to be published while the key goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is still possible. The report's final
summary was adopted after marathon negotiations among the 195 member countries of the IPCC. Some countries wanted to see
more support for fossil fuel use in developing countries, as well as larger demands on developed nations to reduce emissions.
Industrialized nations are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses, with the United States being the largest polluter over time. The
report builds on the dire warnings of two others also released in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report. The first documented how
heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels were the "unequivocal" cause of rising temperatures. The second, released in late
February, showed how billions of people around the globe are at risk of more extreme disasters. This
latest report comes amidst a renewed push for oil and gas drilling, as the war in Ukraine drives a spike in oil prices. Carbon
emissions already roared back to their highest levels ever in 2021 , rebounding after a decline during the
pandemic. "The truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels," U.N. Secretary-General
António Guterres said in a speech. "Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness."

Temp has increased 1.1 degrees, most limit to 1.5 to avoid impacts

Lisa Friedman, January 4, 2022, The New York Times, Biden ‘Over-Promised and Under-
Delivered’ on Climate. Now, Trouble Looms in 2022.,
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/climate/biden-climate-change.html
“If they can’t pull this off, then we failed; the country has failed the climate test,” said John Podesta, a former senior counselor to
President Barack Obama and founder of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. Mr. Podesta praised the Biden
administration for making global warming a priority, creating a White House office of domestic climate policy, appointing an
international climate envoy to reassert U.S. leadership on the global stage, moving forward a handful of regulations and proposing
major investments in clean energy. But he also noted that the physics of climate change is unforgiving. The
planet has
already warmed an average of about 1.1 degrees Celsius compared with temperatures before
the Industrial Revolution. If temperatures continue to rise past 1.5 degrees Celsius, the
likelihood of increasingly deadly wildfires, floods, heat waves and other disasters becomes
unavoidable, scientists have warned. Countries must immediately and drastically reduce greenhouse
gases caused by burning oil, gas and coal if the world is to avert the most catastrophic impacts , experts have
said.

Every ½ degree beyond 1.5 degrees puts hundreds of millions at-risk

Gallagher, January-February 2022, KELLY SIMS GALLAGHER is Academic Dean, Professor of

Energy and Environmental Policy, and Director of the Climate Policy Lab at Tuft University’s
Fletcher School. She served as Senior Policy Adviser in the White House’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy during the Obama administration, The Coming Carbon Tsunami, Developing
Countries Need a New Growth Model—Before It’s Too Late,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/coming-carbon-tsunami

Although world leaders have announced their intention to limit the global temperature rise to
1.5 degrees Celsius, the planet is currently on track to experience warming far in excess of that
level. The consequences of this will be devastating: according to the latest report by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every additional 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming
beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will cause “clearly discernible increases in the intensity and
frequency of hot extremes . . . as well as agricultural and ecological droughts.” In the event of
two degrees Celsius warming, extreme heat waves that normally would have occurred only
once in 50 years will likely occur 14 times during the same time frame. Three hundred and fifty
million more people risk being be exposed to deadly heat: residents of Karachi, Pakistan, and
Kolkata, India, for example, could experience, on an annual basis, conditions like those of the
heat wave that struck the Indian subcontinent in 2015, which killed thousands. These changes
will afflict the developed and the developing world alike; there is no alternative but to
collaborate to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
 AT: Too Late To Solve Climate Change

Indicators demonstrate that catastrophic climate change can be averted. The

momentum exists, but capitalizing on it is key.
Wallace-Wells 21, *David Wallace-Wells is deputy editor of New York magazine, where he
also writes frequently about climate change and the near future of science and technology;
(January 18th, 2021, “After Alarmism”, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/climate-change-
after-pandemic.html)
The change is much bigger than the turnover of American leadership. By the time the Biden presidency finds its footing in a
vaccinated world, the bounds of climate possibility will have been remade. Just a
half-decade ago, it was widely believed
that a “business as usual” emissions path would bring the planet four or five degrees of warming —
enough to make large parts of Earth effectively uninhabitable. Now, thanks to the rapid death of coal, the
revolution in the price of renewable energy, and a global climate politics forged by a generational
awakening, the expectation is for about three degrees. Recent pledges could bring us closer to two. All of
these projections sketch a hazardous and unequal future, and all are clouded with uncertainties — about the climate system, about
technology, about the dexterity and intensity of human response, about how inequitably the most punishing impacts will be
distributed. Yet if
each half-degree of warming marks an entirely different level of suffering, we
appear to have shaved a few of them off our likeliest end stage in not much time at all. The next
half-degrees will be harder to shave off, and the most crucial increment — getting from two degrees to 1.5 — perhaps impossible,
dashing the dream of avoiding what was long described as “catastrophic” change. But for
a climate alarmist like me,
seeing clearly the state of the planet’s future now requires a conspicuous kind of double vision, in
which a guarded optimism seems perhaps as reasonable as panic. Given how long we’ve waited to move, what
counts now as a best-case outcome remains grim. It also appears, miraculously, within reach. In December, a month after
Biden was elected promising to return the U.S. to the Paris agreement, the U.N. celebrated five years since the signing of those
accords. They were five of the six hottest on record. (The sixth was 2015, the year the agreement was signed.) They were also the
years with the highest levels of carbon output in the history of humanity — with emissions equivalent to what was produced by all
human and industrial activity from the speciation of Homo sapiens to the start of World War II. They have also been the five years in
which the nations
of the world — and cities and regions, individuals and institutions, corporations and central banks —
have made the most ambitious pledges of future climate action. Most of them were made in the past 12 months, in
the face of the pandemic. Or, perhaps, to some degree, because of it — because the pandemic demanded a full-body jolt to the
global political economy, provoking much more aggressive government spending, a much more accommodating perspective on
debt, and a much greater openness to large-scale actions and investments of the kind that might plausibly reshape the world. And
because decarbonization has come to seem, even to those economists and policy-makers blinded for decades to the
moral and humanitarian cases for reform, a rational investment. “When I think about climate change,” Biden is fond of
saying, “the word I think of is jobs.” There are two ways of looking at these seemingly contradictory sets of facts. The first is that the
distance between what is being done and what needs to be done is only growing. This is the finding of, among others, the U.N.’s
comprehensive “Emissions Gap” report, issued in December, which found that staying below two degrees of warming would require
a tripling of stated ambitions. To bring the planet in reach of the 1.5-degree target — favored by activists, most scientists, and really
anyone reading their work with open eyes — would require a quintupling. It is also the perspective of Greta Thunberg, who has
spent the pandemic year castigating global leaders for paying mere lip service to far-off decarbonization targets and who called the
E.U.’s new net-zero emissions law “surrender.” The second is that all of the relevant curves are bending — too slowly
but nevertheless in the right direction. The International Energy Agency, a notoriously conservative forecaster, recently
called solar power “the cheapest electricity in history” and projected that India will build 86
percent less new coal power capacity than it thought just one year ago. Today, business as usual no longer means a
fivefold increase of coal use this century, as was once expected. It means pretty rapid decarbonization , at least by the
standards of history, in which hardly any has ever taken place before . Both of these perspectives are true. The gap
is real, and the world risks tumbling into it, subjecting much of the global South to unconscionable punishments all the way down.
But in the months since the pandemic wiped climate strikers off the streets, their concerns have seeped into not just
public-opinion surveys but parliaments and presidencies, trade deals and the advertising business, finance and insurance — in short,
all the citadels presiding over the ancien régime of fossil capital. This is not exactly a climate revolution; the
strikers and their allies didn’t win in the way they wanted to, at least not yet. But they did win something. Environmental
anxieties haven’t toppled neoliberalism. Instead, to an unprecedented degree, they infiltrated it. (Or perhaps
they were appropriated by it. It’s an open question.) Climate change isn’t an issue just for die-hards anymore — it’s for normies,
sellouts, and anyone with their finger in the wind. It will take time, of course, for voters to see empty rhetoric for what it is, and for
consumers to learn to distinguish, say, between the claims of guiltless airline tickets, or between carbon-free foods in the
supermarket aisle. Harder still will be sorting through the differences between real corporate commitments like Microsoft’s and
more evasive ones, like BP’s. Already, there is considerable consternation among climate activists that the public doesn’t understand
the tricky math of “net-zero” on which so many of these commitments have been made—it is not a promise of ending emissions, but
of offsetting some amount of them, in the future, with “negative emissions,” sometimes called “carbon dioxide removal,” though no
approach of that kind is ready to go at anything like the necessary scale. And while some amount of skepticism about those
commitments is surely warranted, it is also the case that, according to a recent Bloomberg review, of 187 corporate climate
pledges made for 2020 in 2015, 138 will be met. (Many of those promises were quite modest, but it is a much better
performance than has been managed by the 189 parties to the Paris agreement, of which only two — Morocco and Gambia — are
today judged fully “compatible” with the 1.5-degree goal, and only six more with the 2-degree target). In the political sphere, the uneasy alliance
between activists and those in power will be tested, producing new conflicts, or new equilibria, or both. Consider, though, that Varshini Prakash, whose Sunrise Movement gave Biden’s primary candidacy an F,
later helped write his climate plan along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Climate expertise has been distributed throughout the incoming administration, as was promised during a campaign that closed,
remarkably, with a climate-focused advertising blitz. During the transition, Biden’s pick for director of the National Economic Council, Brian Deese, was targeted by the environmental left for his time with
BlackRock, but even this purported stooge had been married by Bill McKibben, one of the godfathers of modern climate activism. Elsewhere in the world, where 85 percent of global emissions are produced, the
great infiltration of climate concerns represents what the British environmental writer James Murray has called “an alternative history to 2020” and what the scientist turned journalist Akshat Rathi has declared “a
strong sign that climate action is starting to be ‘institutionalized’ — that is, getting deeply embedded into how the world works.” This is not about coronavirus lockdowns producing emissions drops or “nature
healing.” It is instead about long-standing trajectories passing obvious tipping points in coal use and political salience; promises and posturing by powerful if compromised institutions; and policy progress almost
smuggled into place, all over the world, under cover of pandemic night. In the U.S., in the second coronavirus stimulus, $35 billion in clean-energy spending passed in the Senate 92-6 — an effective down
payment, energy researcher Varun Sivaram has estimated, on the innovation spending needed for a full electrification of the country. Did you even notice? Biden’s climate plan now faces the challenge of a
filibuster, a skeptical Supreme Court, and the mood of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, which means American climate action over the next four years is probably more likely to be delivered piecemeal —
through appropriations and stimulus, executive action, and regulation — than through a landmark Green New Deal–style piece of legislation. That does limit what can be achieved, but it also means avoiding a
protracted battle over climate as a referendum on the identity of the nation. And at least nominally, having been pressured by activists to do so, Biden is promising to multiply the green spending in that recent
stimulus by a factor of 60. The numbers are numbingly large — reminders that in the midst of pandemic turmoil, the rules of state spending have been dramatically revised and perhaps even suspended. Is this
global free-spending binge the beginning of a new era or merely a crisis interregnum to be followed by a new new austerity? “We don’t know what the recovery packages of COVID are going to be,” Christiana
Figueres, one of the central architects of the Paris accords, told me this summer. “And honestly, the depth of decarbonization is going to largely depend on the characteristics of those recovery packages more than
on anything else, because of their scale. We’re already at $12 trillion; we could go up to $20 trillion over the next 18 months. We have never seen — the world has never seen — $20 trillion go into the economy
For those dreaming of
over such a short period of time. That is going to determine the logic, the structures, and certainly the carbon intensity of the global economy at least for a decade, if not more.”

a climate recovery, the first round of spending was not so encouraging. The E.U. was the gold standard, promising that 30 percent of
its stimulus would be earmarked for climate. The U.S. and China each pledged only a fraction of that (and in each case, there was
fossil stimulus, too). But in October, a team of researchers including Joeri Rogelj of the Imperial College of London calculated that
just one-tenth of the COVID-19 stimulus spending already committed around the world, directed toward
decarbonization during each of the next five years, would be sufficient to deliver the goals of the Paris
agreement and stop global warming well below two degrees. That analysis may be a touch optimistic, but the
level of spending seems, now, doable. When Donald Trump was elected, trashing Paris, climate hawks were left hoping
that the world would hang on for the length of his administration — insisting that, in the long term, the crisis couldn’t be solved
without America at the helm. But the past four years of missing leadership have produced astonishing gains. The
price of solar
energy has fallen ninefold over the past decade, as has the price of lithium batteries, critical to the
growth of electric cars. The costs of utility-scale batteries , which could solve the “intermittency” (i.e., cloudy day)
problem of renewables and help power whole cities in relatively short order, have fallen 70 percent since just 2015. Wind
power is 40 percent cheaper than it was a decade ago, with offshore wind experiencing an even steeper decline. Overall,
renewable energy is less expensive than dirty energy almost everywhere on the planet, and in many places it is
simply cheaper to build new renewable capacity than to continue running the old fossil-fuel infrastructure. Oil demand and
carbon emissions may both have peaked this year. Eighty percent of coal plants planned in Asia’s
developing countries have been shelved. This summer, I heard the Australian scientist and entrepreneur Saul Griffith talk
about what it would take to get the U.S. within range of a 1.5 degree world. He said it would mean that beginning in 2021, this year,
every single person buying a new car would have to be buying an electric one. That seems unrealistic, I thought, making a note of it
as a useful benchmark illustrating just how far we have to go. Then, in the fall, the U.K. pledged to ban nonelectrics by 2030—a
once-unthinkable law coming both too slow and much more quickly than seemed possible not very long ago. Similar plans are now
in place in 16 other countries, plus Massachusetts and California. Canada recently raised its tax on carbon sixfold. Italy cut its power-
sector emissions 65 percent between 2012 and 2019, and Denmark is now aiming to reduce its overall emissions 70 percent by
2030. “We set ourselves challenges that on paper looked almost impossible,” the country’s minister for the environment, Dan
Jørgensen, told me recently. “And I think experts in many countries said, when looking at Denmark, ‘This is going to be too
expensive, this is going to lower their living standards, this is going to hurt their ability to compete.’ But actually I’m proud to say
that the opposite has happened. Now, of course, we have set even higher standards.” In the midst of the pandemic, new net-
zero pledges, far more ambitious than those offered at Paris, were independently made by Japan, South
Korea, the E.U., and, most significant, China, the world’s biggest emitter, which promised to reach an emissions
peak by 2030 and get all the way to zero by 2060. China’s promise is so ambitious it has inspired one wave of debate among
experts about whether it is even feasible — given that it would require, for instance, roughly twice as much renewable power to be
installed every year for the next decade as Germany has operating nationwide today — and another debate about whether it has
revived the possibility of that 1.5-degree target, with economic historian Adam Tooze writing, just after Xi Jinping’s surprise
announcement in September, that it single-handedly “redefined the future prospects for humanity.” Together, the
new net-
zero pledges may have subtracted a full half-degree from ultimate warming. Add Biden’s campaign
pledge of net zero by 2050, and you’ve got about two-thirds of global emissions at least nominally
committed to firm, aggressive timelines to zero. These are all just paper promises, of course, and the history of
climate action is littered with the receipts of similar ones uncashed. Plot the growth of carbon concentration in the atmosphere
against the sequence of climate-action conferences and a distressing pattern emerges: the World Meteorological Conference of
1979, the U.N. framework of 1992, the Kyoto protocol of 1997, the Copenhagen accord of 2009, and the 2015 Paris accords, all
tracking an uninterrupted trajectory upward for carbon from a “safe” level under 350 parts per million, past 400, to 414 today, and
pointing upward from there. Before the industrial revolution, humans had never known an atmosphere with even 300 parts per
million. Inevitably now, within a few years, the concentration will reach levels not seen since 3.3 million years ago, when sea levels
were 60 feet higher. For all their momentum, renewables still only make up 10 percent of global electricity production. But
alarmists have to take the good news where they find it . And while mood affiliation is not always the best guide
to the state of the world, in 2020, for me, there were three main sources of hope. The first is the fact that the age of climate
denial is over thanks to extreme weather and the march of science and the historic labor of activists — climate
strikers, Sunrise, Extinction Rebellion — whose success in raising alarm may have been so sudden that they brought an end to the
age of climate Jeremiahs as well. Their voices now echo in some unlikely places. Exxon was booted from the S&P 500 within months
of Tesla making Elon Musk the world’s richest man. The cultural cachet of oil companies is quickly approaching that of tobacco
companies. Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil aside, practically every leader of every country and every major figure in every corporate and
industrial sector now feels obligated — because of protest and social pressure, economic realities, and cultural expectation — to at
least make a show of support for climate action. It would be nice not to have to count that as progress, but it is. The questions are:
How much does it matter? And what will follow? Disinformation and human disregard are not the only instruments of delay, and the
age of climate denial is likely to yield first not to an age of straightforward climate deliverance but to one characterized by climate
hypocrisy, greenwashing, and gaslighting. But those things, ugly and maddening and even criminal as they are, have always been
with us. It is the other thing that is new. The second source of good news is the arrival on the global stage of
climate self-interest. By this I don’t mean the profiteering logic of BlackRock, which opportunistically announced some half-
hearted climate commitments last year, but rather the growing consensus in almost every part of the globe, and at almost
every level of society and governance, that the world will be made better through decarbonization. A decade
ago, many of the more ruthless capitalists to analyze that project deemed it too expensive to undertake. Today, it suddenly
appears almost too good a deal to pass up. (A recent McKinsey report: “Net-Zero Emissions at Net-Zero Cost.”) The
logic may be clearest in considering the effects of air pollution, which kills an estimated 9 million people per year. In India, where
more than 8 percent of GDP is lost to pollution, poor air quality is also responsible for 350,000 miscarriages and stillbirths every year.
Globally, coal kills one person for every thousand people it provides power to, and even in the U.S., with its enviably clean air, total
decarbonization would be entirely paid for, Duke’s Drew Shindell recently testified before Congress, just through the public-health
benefits of cutting out fossil fuels. You don’t even have to calculate any of the other returns — more jobs, cheaper energy, new
infrastructure. Of course, countries all around the world are incorporating those considerations too, turning the page on a
generation of economic analysis that said decarbonization was too costly and its benefits too small to sell to the public as upside. A
decade ago, capitalists deemed decarbonization too expensive. Suddenly, it appears too good a deal to pass up. What is perhaps
most striking about all the new climate
pledges is not just that they were made in the absence of American leadership but that
they were made outside the boundaries of the Paris framework . They are not the result of geopolitical strong-
arming or “Kumbaya” consensus. They are, instead, plans arrived at internally, in some cases secretly. This has been
eye-opening for the many skeptics who worried for decades about climate’s collective-action problem — who warned that because
the benefits of decarbonization were distributed globally while the costs were concentrated locally, nations would move only if all of
their peers did too. But a recent paper by Matto Mildenberger and Michaël Alkin suggests this shouldn’t be a surprise. In their
retrospective analysis, they found that, despite much consternation about designing climate policy to prevent countries from
“cheating,” there was basically no evidence of any country ever pulling back from mitigation efforts to take a free ride on the good-
faith efforts of others. There was, in other words, no collective-action problem on climate after all. For a generation, the
argument for climate action was made on a moral basis. That case has only grown stronger. And
now there are other powerful, more mercenary arguments to offer. The third cause for optimism is that, while the timelines to
tolerably disruptive climate outcomes have already evaporated, the timelines to the next set of benchmarks is
much more forgiving. This is why Glen Peters, the research director at the Cicero Center for International Climate Research,
often jokes that while keeping warming below two degrees is very hard, perhaps even impossible, keeping it
below 2.5 degrees now looks like a walk in the park. This isn’t to say we’re on a glide path to safety. At current
emissions levels, the planet will entirely exhaust the carbon budget for 1.5 degrees in just seven years — stay merely level, in other
words, and we’ll burn through the possibility of a relatively comfortable endgame within the decade. We could buy ourselves a little
more time by starting to move quickly, but not that much more. To decarbonize fast enough to give the planet a decent chance of
hitting that 1.5-degree target without any negative emissions would require getting all the way to net-zero emissions by around
2035. Simply running the cars and furnaces and fossil-fuel infrastructure that already exists to its expected retirement date would
push the world past 1.5 degrees—without a single new gasoline SUV hitting the road, or a single new oil-heated home being built, or
a single new coal plant opened. A two-degree target, by contrast, yields a much longer timeline, requiring the
world to achieve net-zero by 2070 or 2080 — without even the help of negative emissions. We’d have to
cut carbon production in half in about three decades, rather than one. That pathway will almost certainly prove harder than it looks.
The good news is that we seem to be beginning, at least, to try.

Saying “warming inevitable” is wrong

Golden 14, is policy director of Climate Solutions, which promotes clean and efficient energy
sources. He’s former director of energy policy for the State of Washington. Foreword by Paul
Loeb contributor to the Huff Post. (K.C. 5-6-2017, “Global Warming: The Inevitability Trap,”
Huffington Post, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/global-warming-the-inevit_b_5274788)

Is the biggest hurdle on climate change outright denial? Or is it the sense that of being
overwhelmed and too late, that there’s nothing we can do? As K.C. Golden writes in an excerpt from my
newly updated political hope anthology The Impossible Will Take a Little While, defeat is certain only if we accept it as
such. What we often call preordained only becomes so through our resignation. So the only way
to discover what’s achievable is by taking action, trying new approaches, expanding the bounds of the
possible. Golden’s group, Climate Solutions, does exactly that, mixing environmental advocacy on
issues like coal exports with climate-change consulting for Pacific Northwest corporations , small
businesses, and local governments. In a hopeful sign, sponsors of the group’s annual breakfast recently included Boeing
and Alaska Airlines, with which Climate Solutions is working to develop algae-based and other sustainable bio-fuels — a partnership
that would have been nearly unimaginable a short while ago. It’s time to rally around an embattled concept: free will. Having
aligned myself against a battalion of seemingly irresistible forces over the years, I’ve become a
student of “inevitability.” How do environmentally destructive choices become inevitable ? Near as
I can tell, it starts when the people who will benefit from these choices simply begin to assert their
inevitability. We’re especially receptive to inevitability right now . We’re comforted by the notion
that amid all the uncertainty and confusion, from the economy to climate disruption — some larger
forces are at work toward pre-determined outcomes. We’re sort of relieved to hear that
something’s inevitable, even if it’s not necessarily something we like. It clarifies things. It’s more
pragmatic to be resigned to the inevitable than to chart a new course through the chaos. Plus, it
spares us the disappointment of pinning false hopes on dysfunctional democratic institutions —
or working to change them. So the myth of inevitability spreads and the prophecy fulfills itself . If
the proponents of a particular course can get a critical mass of folks to believe that it’s a foregone
conclusion, pretty soon it will be. Those who assert that conservation and renewables will never
replace fossil fuels are using the only strategy available to them . They propound the myth of
inevitability because they know that few of us would actually choose more waste, and eternal
dependence on coal, oil, and gas extracted in ever-more risky and destructive ways. Having little
chance of convincing people that these outcomes are desirable , they tell us we have no choice in
the matter. Think about the arguments that have blocked serious U.S. action on climate change.
First, it wasn’t happening. Then it was happening but it wasn’t human-caused. (Damn those sun
spots.) Now maybe it is human-caused but there’s nothing we can do because China and India’s
emissions will swamp us anyway—never mind the American corporations whose manufacturing
facilities get counted in their carbon impact . So we might as well shovel and ship their coal because
otherwise they’ll just burn someone else’s . Responsibility is no one’s. Resistance is futile. But inevitably we do
have choices to make. Failing to make them consciously isn’t failing to make them at all; it’s just falling for
the inevitability trap. It’s just giving ourselves an excuse for allowing the wrong choices to be
made, and a feeble excuse at that. Among all the reasons for continuing to choose the path of
evading responsibility for climate disruption, I think the least satisfying, the least noble, the
hardest one to forgive ourselves for is: “It wasn’t up to me.” Well, it’s up to somebody. Who’s it gonna be?

We’re approaching the tipping point, but there’s time to avert it

Evers 19 - editor at SPIEGEL's science department
Marco, 12-12-2019, The Time to Save the Climate Is Now, Der Spiegel,
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/is-it-too-late-to-save-the-climate-a-1300898.html

There is no longer any doubt: The pace of climate change is accelerating. Of the 20 hottest years measured since records began, 19
have occurred since 2000. The top five were the last five years. Summer 2019 saw a new temperature record set in Germany of 42.6
degrees Celsius (108 degrees Fahrenheit) and 46 degrees in France. Preliminary findings indicate that the world experienced its
warmest average temperatures ever during the months of June, July, September and October of this year. Only the El Niño-fueled
year of 2016 remains unsurpassed, with temperatures boosted by the natural weather phenomenon that heats up the eastern
Pacific every few years. Indeed, 2019 could ultimately beat out 2015 for second place and will definitely exceed 2017, 2018 and, as
has been clear for some time, each of the 1,000 years before that. It is, of course, not possible to accurately predict where 2020 will
fit in. It is clear, however, that the coming year will once again be marked by extreme weather events such as heat waves, excessive
rainfall, thawing of permafrost, glacier melting, tropical storms, forest fires and droughts, even though it remains difficult to
attribute a single weather event to climate change. The Greenhouse Age The new Greenhouse Age is dawning irrevocably, and the
state of the world is becoming increasingly precarious. In October 2019, global sea levels were at their highest ever since the start of
satellite measurements in 1993. The oceans are warmer than ever before, and the ice sheets of Greenland and the ice shelves of
West Antarctica have thinned to an even greater extent than predicted. The cause of the highest temperatures in a millennium can
be found in the atmosphere. Never before in the past 3 million years has our atmosphere stored as much of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide (CO2) as it does right now. Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remained
relatively constant for thousands of years at between 260 and 280 parts per million (ppm). But then, mankind began burning ever-
increasing amounts of fossil fuels and the CO2 content of the atmosphere rose. The planet reached a value of 320 ppm in May 1960.
On May 9, 2013, that figure crossed the 400-ppm threshold for the first time. And in 2019, the concentration reached its record level
of 415.7 ppm. The values decrease slightly from May to September owing to the abundance of plants growing in the Northern
Hemisphere in summer that absorb CO2 through photosynthesis. Next spring, though, is sure to set a new record, because despite
the Paris Climate Protection Agreement of 2015 and annual climate conferences like the one currently being held in Madrid, global
CO2 emissions are still on the rise. After stagnating between 2014 and 2016, they have been growing ever since. This is the shocking
truth about the "climate crisis" that the European Parliament and many countries and cities declared in 2019. At least since the Rio
de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, researchers have been warning that CO2 emissions need to be reduced. But that hasn't happened.
On the contrary, annual global CO2 emissions have increased by 60 percent since then. Four years ago in Paris, countries set the goal
of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 or, if possible, even 1.5 degrees Celsius. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated one year ago that it is even still theoretically possible to meet the lower of the two
targets, but doubts persist about whether it is still feasible politically, economically and in practical terms. The world has already
warmed by 1.1 degrees compared to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. The IPCC believes that meeting the 1.5-degree target would
require an extremely ambitious effort, requiring that the world halve its CO2 to roughly the level of 1979. And we would have to do
so by 2030, just 10 years from now. It would also require that CO2 emissions be further reduced to zero by 2040. For the more
realistic 2-degree target, CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by a quarter by 2030. If both targets are missed, the only other
possibility for a future with a climate that is still bearable would be for humanity to find a way to artificially extract hundreds of
billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere at extremely high costs, using large-scale technologies for which there are no
guarantees that they will work. 'Nowhere Near on Track' The prospects for reaching the 1.5-degree goal, though, are "on the brink of
becoming impossible," researchers warned in the annual "Emissions Gap Report" compiled by the UN Environmental Program and
released on Nov. 26. The report takes a look at the CO2 reductions countries should be undertaking with those that they are actually
achieving. Enormous discrepancies become apparent in the report. Even if the countries were to achieve all the climate change goals
they have committed themselves to so far, global warming would still exceed 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the report. This
would cause a sea level rise of half a meter (1'8"), meaning cities like Miami or Shanghai might have to be abandoned. In order to
achieve the 1.5-degree target, though, the countries of the world would have to multiply their efforts -- and ensure that they emit 32
billion tons less CO2 by 2030. The UNEP report states that even just 2-degree target would require a rapid reduction of total CO2
emissions by around 15 billion tons. It's not impossible, but it is extremely difficult. Researchers who worked on the UN
report say achieving the 1.5 degree goal would require that each country reduce its CO2 emissions by 7.6 percent each year
between 2020 and 2030. In order to achieve the 2-degree target, reductions of 2.7 percent per year are necessary. "We are nowhere
near on track to meet the Paris Agreement target," said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization,
summing up the situation. Meanwhile, UNEP head Inger Anderson has said that "radical transformations" of economies and societies
toward increased sustainability are now needed. Otherwise, she says, we will find ourselves facing a "planet radically altered by
climate change." There is no third option. The UNEP report is critical of lack of action taken by countries around the world despite
the promises they have made. When the first "Emissions Gap Report" was released in 2010, many countries promised to phase out
subsidies for fossil fuels, but little has happened since then. Others promised to stop deforestation, but often enough, words weren't
followed by deeds. The organization is now urging G-20 countries to adopt a series of tough measures. The EU should stop
generating power from coal, for instance, and forget about installing gas pipelines from Russia. Europe should also abolish the
combustion engine, make buildings more energy-efficient more quickly and massively expand local public transportation
everywhere. The new head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced a "European Green Deal" on
Wednesday, which the commission said would likely require investments of over 1 trillion euros in additional climate protection
measures by 2030. The aim is for the entire Continent to become carbon-neutral by 2050, at least according to the official plan. The
measures that will ultimately be taken to achieve this, however, will likely fall short of UNEP's demands. The tone of the UNEP report
is largely pessimistic, but it does contain passages that leave some room for optimism. The cost of producing renewable energy has
fallen much faster than experts thought possible just a few years ago. The price of solar energy, for instance, has dropped by more
than 75 percent since 2010, while the price of wind power has gone down by around 35 percent. In many parts of the world,
renewables are already the cheapest source of energy. A surprising number of coal-fired power plants are therefore being shut
down sooner than expected, or are simply not built in the first place. The report's authors see enormous -- and realistic -- potential
for reducing CO2 by 2030 in the areas of green power generation, reforestation, electromobility and more energy-efficient industry.
So, has the era of renewable energies finally dawned? Not entirely. Tipping Points UNEP and its partners, including the Stockholm
Environment Institute, have published another report. This one examines just how many fossil fuels will be extracted from the earth
in the foreseeable future on the basis of decisions that have already been made, investment commitments or permits that have
been granted. The result: Unless governments intervene on a massive scale, the amount of oil, coal and gas being extracted and
burned will be 50 percent more than otherwise permitted under the 2 degrees Celsius target, and more than twice as much as the
1.5 degrees Celsius target. At the moment, the global mean temperature is rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. From this,
barring some radical about-face, it can be surmised that the earth will already be 1.5 degrees hotter in 2040 than in the pre-
industrial era -- 60 years sooner than predicted by the Paris Climate Agreement. Prospects like these make some climate researchers
nervous, because as global temperatures rise, so does the risk that so-called tipping points in the climate system will be reached. If
these thresholds are exceeded, self-reinforcing and perhaps irreversible processes could occur that might lead to even more
warming. A Stalled Gulf Stream This is already happening with sea ice in the Arctic. Because it's so bright, it reflects massive amounts
of solar energy back into space. But if the ice melts due to global warming, like it is already doing in the summer months, that solar
energy gets absorbed by the sea, which then heats up and melts even more ice. A warmer Arctic also results in more permafrost
thawing, which allows huge amounts of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, to escape into the atmosphere. In turn, the
temperature rises even further and more ice melts on, say, Greenland. This fresh water then pours into the Atlantic, which could
cause sea levels around the world to rise and could also alter the Gulf Stream, the strong ocean current that warms Western and
Northern Europe. The Gulf Stream is primarily driven by the thick, heavy salt water that sinks along Greenland's coast. If this water is
diluted by enough fresh water, the current could weaken, which would disrupt ocean circulation worldwide. In the scientific journal
Nature, researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and other organizations have now expressly
warned against these and other tipping points. It is conceivable that some of these could trigger others like dominoes; if a critical
mass is reached, the earth's composition could be changed quite abruptly. Our
planet is already considerably
warmer and it could be "dangerously close" to these tipping points . This possibility, though theoretical,
constitutes "a planetary emergency" and "an existential threat to civilization," PIK founder Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and his
colleagues write. Does this count as alarmism? Absolutely. Other climate researchers have their doubts as to whether these tipping
points are really that imminent. But what if they are?
Even if some warming is inevitable, stopping tail-end risk prevents extinction
Roberts 8-7-2018 (David, “This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way
worse than 1.5,” Vox,
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-
warming-2-degrees-climate-change?__twitter_impression=true)

By delaying the necessary work of decarbonization, we are consigning millions of people in

tropical regions to less food and in the Mediterranean to less water — with all the attendant
health problems and conflict. We’re allowing more heat waves and higher seas. We’re giving up
on the world’s coral reefs, and with them the hundreds of species that rely on them. And even
then, the decision will still face us: 2 degrees or 3? Again, it will mean more heat waves, more
crop losses, more water shortages, more inundated coastal cities, more disease and conflict,
millions more suffering. And even then, the decision: 3 degrees or 4? The longer we wait, the
more human suffering and irreversible damage to ecosystems we inscribe into our collective
future. But there’s no hiding, no escaping the imperative to decarbonize. It must be done if our
species is to have a long-term home on Earth.

CCS fails.
Kubota ‘19 (Taylor Kubota; Citing Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering @ Stanford AND
senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment; 10/25/19; "Study casts doubt on carbon capture"; Phys;
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-carbon-capture.html) *Upstream emissions = emissions, including from leaks and
combustion, from mining and transporting a fuel such as coal or natural gas

One proposed method for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere—and reducing the
risk of climate change—is to capture carbon from the air or prevent it from getting there in the first place.
However, research from Mark Z. Jacobson at Stanford University, published in Energy and Environmental Science,
suggests that carbon capture technologies can cause more harm than good. "All sorts of
scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon.
However, this research finds that it reduces only
a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it
usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering.
"Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social
cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and
always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture
equipment cost." Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, examined
public data from a coal with carbon capture electric power plant and a plant that removes carbon from the air directly. In both
cases, electricity to run the carbon capture came from natural gas. He calculated the net
CO2 reduction and
total cost of the carbon capture process in each case, accounting for the electricity needed to run
the carbon capture equipment, the combustion and upstream emissions resulting from that electricity, and, in
the case of the coal plant, its upstream emissions. (Upstream emissions are emissions , including from leaks and
combustion, from mining and transporting a fuel such as coal or natural gas.) Common estimates
of carbon capture technologies—which only look at the carbon captured from energy production at
a fossil fuel plant itself and not upstream emissions—say carbon capture can remediate 85-90
percent of carbon emissions. Once Jacobson calculated all the emissions associated with
these plants that could contribute to global warming, he converted them to the equivalent amount of
carbon dioxide in order to compare his data with the standard estimate. He found that in both cases the
equipment captured the equivalent of only 10-11 percent of the emissions they produced,
averaged over 20 years. This research also looked at the social cost of carbon capture—including air
pollution, potential health problems, economic costs and overall contributions to climate change—
and concluded that those are always similar to or higher than
operating a fossil fuel plant without
carbon capture and higher than not capturing carbon from the air at all. Even when the
capture equipment is powered by renewable electricity, Jacobson concluded that it is always better to
use the renewable electricity instead to replace coal or natural gas electricity or to do nothing, from a social cost perspective.
Given this analysis, Jacobson argued that the best solution is to instead focus on renewable options, such as wind or solar,
replacing fossil fuels. Efficiency and upstream emissions This research is based on data from two real carbon capture plants,
which both run on natural gas. The first is a coal plant with carbon capture equipment. The second plant is not attached to any
energy-producing counterpart. Instead, it pulls existing carbon dioxide from the air using a chemical process. Jacobson
examined several scenarios to determine the actual and possible efficiencies of these two kinds of plants, including what
would happen if the carbon capture technologies were run with renewable electricity rather than natural gas, and if the same
amount of renewable electricity required to run the equipment were instead used to replace coal plant electricity. While the
standard estimate for the efficiency of carbon capture technologies is 85-90 percent, neither of these plants met that
expectation. Even without accounting for upstream emissions, the equipment associated with the coal plant was only 55.4
percent efficient over 6 months, on average. With the upstream emissions included, Jacobson found that, on average over 20
years, the equipment captured only 10-11 percent of the total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that it and the coal plant
contributed. The air capture plant was also only 10-11 percent efficient, on average over 20 years, once Jacobson took into
consideration its upstream emissions and the uncaptured and upstream emissions that came from operating the plant on
natural gas. Due to the high energy needs of carbon capture equipment, Jacobson concluded that the social cost of coal
with carbon capture powered by natural gas was about 24 percent higher, over 20 years,
than the coal without carbon capture. If the natural gas at that same plant were replaced
with wind power, the social cost would still exceed that of doing nothing. Only when wind
replaced coal itself did social costs decrease. For both types of plants this suggests that, even if carbon capture
equipment is able to capture 100 percent of the carbon it is designed to offset, the cost of
manufacturing and running the equipment plus the cost of the air pollution it continues to allow or
increases makes it less efficient than using those same resources to create renewable energy
plants replacing coal or gas directly. "Not only does carbon capture hardly work at existing plants, but there's no way it can
actually improve to be better than replacing coal or gas with wind or solar directly," said Jacobson. "The latter will always be
better, no matter what, in terms of the social cost. You can't just ignore health costs or climate costs." This study did not
consider what happens to carbon dioxide after it is captured but Jacobson suggests that mostapplications today,
which are for industrial use, result in additional leakage of carbon dioxide back into
the air. Focusing on renewables People propose that carbon capture could be useful in the future, even after we have
stopped burning fossil fuels, to lower atmospheric carbon levels. Even assuming these technologies run on renewables,
Jacobson maintains that the smarter investment is in options that are currently disconnected from
the fossil fuel industry, such as reforestation—a natural version of air capture—and other
forms of climate change solutions focused on eliminating other sources of emissions and
pollution. These include reducing biomass burning, and reducing halogen, nitrous oxide
and methane emissions. "There is a lot of reliance on carbon capture in theoretical modeling, and by
focusing on that as even a possibility, that diverts resources away from real solutions," said Jacobson. "It
gives people hope that you can keep fossil fuel power plants alive. It delays action. In fact, carbon capture and direct air
capture are always opportunity costs."
 AT: Time Frame

Warming is fast---extinction within 5 years

Dr. Jim Garrison 21, PhD from the University of Cambridge, MA from Harvard University, BA
from the University of Santa Clara, Founder/President of Ubiquity University, “Human Extinction
by 2026? Scientists Speak Out”, UbiVerse, 7/1/2021, https://ubiverse.org/posts/human-
extinction-by-2026-scientists-speak-out
This may be the most important article you will ever read, from Arctic News June 13, 2021. It is a presentation of current climate
data around planet earth with the assertion that if
present trends continue, rising temperatures and CO2
emissions could make human life impossible by 2026. That's how bad our situation is. We are
not talking about what might happen over the next decades. We are talking about what is
happening NOW. We are entering a time of escalating turbulence due to our governments' refusal to take any
kind of real action to reduce global warming. We must immediately and with every ounce of awareness and strength that we can
muster take concerted action to REGENERATE human community and the planetary ecology. We must all become REGENERATION
FIRST RESPONDERS, which is the focus of our Masters in Regenerative Action.
 AT: Natural Fluctuations

Industrial climate changes are much greater than natural fluctuations

Leanna Bennet, 1-5, 22, News Times, Argument against climate change misleading,
https://www.newportnewstimes.com/opinion/argument-against-climate-change-misleading/
article_4249b060-6d8a-11ec-b17f-4b563abc08e6.html
Bob Folkers’ screed against the evidence of human-caused climate change (“There is not a climate emergency,” Dec. 29 edition)
warrants challenge. A common logical fallacy is an appeal to authority, which Folkers uses by invoking Dr. William Happer, who
disputes the harmful effects of CO2. This would carry weight if Dr. Happer were a climate scientist, but he isn’t. He’s an atomic
physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy. His opinion on the causes of climate change are as valuable as the opinion of a car
mechanic regarding the benefits of good nutrition. But let’s imagine that Dr. Happer were a climate scientist. His work would need to
undergo peer review. Other climate scientists would have to conduct the same research using the same techniques and achieve the
same results. If that cannot be done, then the science is considered flawed. Peer review keeps science honest, robust and usually as
close to the truth as we can get given current knowledge. There will always be scientists willing to dispute peer-reviewed
conclusions, and Dr. Happer is one of them. Like the tobacco companies’ scientists, the oil and gas industries’ scientists are paid to
promote their interests, not promote good science. Folkers is correct that there are natural fluctuations in climate.
Climate scientists have bored into Antarctic ice cores and determined when these fluctuations occurred and how long they
lasted. What they also found was a stark and alarming difference in the way the climate has
changed since the Industrial Age — the time during which humans started pumping harmful
gasses into the atmosphere. The vast majority of peer reviewed, climate science research
shows an indisputable, direct connection between human activity and climate change . Peer
reviewed science isn’t always correct, but it is the best tool available to guide our understanding and our policies.
 Now Key

It’s fast---extinction within 5 years

Dr. Jim Garrison 21, PhD from the University of Cambridge, MA from Harvard University, BA
from the University of Santa Clara, Founder/President of Ubiquity University, “Human Extinction
by 2026? Scientists Speak Out”, UbiVerse, 7/1/2021, https://ubiverse.org/posts/human-
extinction-by-2026-scientists-speak-out

This may be the most important article you will ever read, from Arctic News June 13, 2021. It is a
presentation of current climate data around planet earth with the assertion that if present
trends continue, rising temperatures and CO2 emissions could make human life impossible by
2026. That's how bad our situation is. We are not talking about what might happen over the
next decades. We are talking about what is happening NOW. We are entering a time of
escalating turbulence due to our governments' refusal to take any kind of real action to reduce
global warming. We must immediately and with every ounce of awareness and strength that we
can muster take concerted action to REGENERATE human community and the planetary ecology.
We must all become REGENERATION FIRST RESPONDERS, which is the focus of our Masters in
Regenerative ActioPrefer scientific consensus – now’s the last chance before
countless catastrophic impacts become irreversible – encompasses all other
impacts, making it try or die to avoid the disad

Åberg et al 10-5-21 (Anna Åberg, research analyst in the Environment and Society
Programme of Chatham House, formerly served as desk officer at the Swedish Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, MSc Development Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science,
BSc Business and Economics, and Politics and Economics, Lund University; Antony Froggatt,
deputy director and senior research fellow in the Environment and Society Programme of
Chatham House; and Rebecca Peters, Queen Elizabeth II Academy Fellow in the Environment
and Society Programme of Chatham House, doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford with
the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office REACH Water Security programme,
MSc Development Economics, MSc Water Science and Policy, Marshall Scholar; “Raising climate
ambition at COP26,” Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London)
Research Paper, October 2021, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-
10/2021-10-05-raising-climate-ambition-at-cop26-aberg-et-al-pdf.pdf)
01

Introduction

COP26 is the most important climate summit since COP21 in Paris in 2015. Over the past year, the global politics of
climate change have shifted, with the election of President Joe Biden and the announcement
of China’s carbon neutrality target .

Addressing climate change is the defining challenge of our time. Around the globe – and across
the suite of UN organizations – there is widespread recognition of the urgency to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to prepare for a world that is, and will continue to be,
severely impacted by climate change.
The foundational treaty of the international climate change regime – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) – was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.1 Its signatories agreed to ‘achieve… stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’.2
The states that have ratified the UNFCCC meet annually at the ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to assess and review the
implementation of the convention.3 The COP has negotiated two separate treaties since the formation of the UNFCCC: the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997, and the Paris Agreement in 2015.4

The Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 parties at COP21 in 2015 and entered into force less than a year later.5 The goals of the
treaty are to keep the rise in the global average temperature to ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’, ideally 1.5°C; enhance
the ability to adapt to climate change and build resilience; and make ‘finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low
greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’.6 The agreement adopts a ‘bottom-up’ and non-standardized
approach, where parties themselves set their national emission reduction targets and communicate these to the UNFCCC in the
form of nationally determined contributions (NDCs).7

As things stand, the targets8 that were submitted in the run-up to COP21 are not sufficient, even if fully implemented, to limit global
warming to 2°C, much less 1.5°C.9 The Paris Agreement was designed, however, to generate increased ambition over time via two
components: a collective ‘global stocktake’ during which progress towards Paris Agreement goals is assessed based on country
reporting,10 and the ‘ratchet mechanism’, which encourages countries to communicate new or updated NDCs every five years, with
the expectation that ambition will increase over time.11 The results of the stocktake are scheduled to be released two years before
NDC revisions are made.12 This sequencing is designed to allow national plans to account for the global context of the climate
assessment. The first global stocktake is to be conducted between 2021 and 2023, and will be repeated every five years
thereafter.13 The results of the first stocktake are due to be published around COP28.

We really are out of time . We must act now to prevent further irreversible damage . COP26
this November must mark that turning point .14 UN Secretary-General António Guterres, 16 September 2021
The 26th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UNFCCC is to be hosted by the UK, in partnership with Italy. After a
year-long delay, the conference is now scheduled to take place in Glasgow, Scotland, between 31 October and 12 November
2021.15 Organizing an in-person event during a pandemic presents a substantial challenge. The UK government is providing vaccines
to accredited delegations, but doses only started to be delivered at the beginning of September 2021 and restrictions, such as
quarantine requirements,16 pose further obstacles to participation.17 An alliance of 1,500 civil society organizations are among
those calling for a second postponement of the COP, citing concerns about a lack of plans to enable safe and inclusive participation
of delegates from, not least, the Global South.18 The UK government is, however, adamant that it will proceed with the conference
as planned.19

The pandemic has changed understandings of global risks, the interconnected nature of economies and the role of governments in
preparing for and responding to existential threats. This may provide impetus for accelerated climate action. The postponement of
COP26 itself has been of considerable significance. Over the past year, the global politics of climate change have shifted, with the
election of President Joe Biden and the announcement of China’s climate neutrality target being particularly important. Moreover,
the economic recovery packages that are being rolled out to counter the economic consequences of the pandemic present an
opportunity to accelerate the green transition.20 To date, however, the members of the G20 have prioritized investments in fossil
fuels above those in clean energy,21 and only 10 per cent of the global expenditure is estimated to have been allocated to projects
with a net positive effect on the environment.22

COP26 is the most important climate summit since COP21 in Paris, and it differs from earlier COPs in
several ways: it is the first test of the ambition-raising ratchet mechanism and marks a shift
from negotiation to implementation . An ambitious outcome at COP26 requires substantial
action to be taken before the summit – and outside the remits of the UNFCCC process – as well as at the actual
conference.

Human activity has already caused the global average temperature to rise by around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels, and every
additional increase in warming raises the risks for people, communities and ecosystems. To avoid the most
catastrophic climate change impacts , it is essential world leaders make every effort to limit
warming to 1.5°C . Working group I of the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC shows it is still
possible to keep warming to this critical threshold, but that unprecedented action must be
taken now .23 As John Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, stated, ‘[t]his test is now as acute and as
existential as any previous one’.24

COP26 has a critical role in getting the world on track for a 1.5°C pathway , and in supporting those
most affected by climate change impacts. It also constitutes a key test for the credibility of the Paris
Agreement and the UNFCCC process overall . But what can and should the Glasgow summit achieve more
specifically? The objective of this paper is to discuss what a positive outcome at COP26 would entail, with the dual aims of
encouraging increased ambition and contributing to an informed public debate. The main argument put forth is that substantial
progress must be made in three main areas, namely on increasing the ambition of NDCs; enhancing support to and addressing
concerns of climate-vulnerable developing countries; and advancing the Paris Rulebook to help operationalize the Paris Agreement.

COP26 is undoubtedly hugely significant and national government pledges in the run-up to Glasgow will contribute to shaping the
level of future GHG emissions. However, the
event is not only critical in terms of reaching an ambitious
outcome on climate, it is also an important opportunity to judge the level of confidence in the
international process and the UNFCCC.
02

Increasing the ambition of the NDCs

A key element of COP26 will be the level of ambition of the revised NDCs put forward by
governments to the UNFCCC and the extent to which these keep the 1.5°C global warming
target agreed in Paris within reach.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), greenhouse gases (GHGs) in 2019 totalled 52.4 gigatonnes of CO₂
equivalent (GtCO₂e)25 of which the majority was CO₂ (38 Gt), then methane (9.8 Gt), nitrous oxide (2.8 Gt) and F-gases (1.7 Gt).26
The same year, GHG emissions were approximately 59 per cent higher than in 1990 and 44 per cent higher than in 2000.The six
largest emitters – together accounting for 62 per cent of the global total – were China (26.7 per cent), the US (13 per cent), the EU (8
per cent), India (7 per cent), Russia (5 per cent) and Japan (3 per cent) (see Figure 1).27

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
According to UNEP, the implementation of the first round of NDCs would result in an average global temperature increase of 3°C
above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, with further warming taking place thereafter. If these NDC’s were fully
implemented, emission levels are expected to be in the range of 56 GtCO2e (with unconditional NDCs) to 53 GtCO₂e (with
conditional NDCs) by 2030.28 To align with a 2°C pathway, the ambition of the second round of NDCs would need to triple relative to
the original targets, leading to emissions levels of around 41 GtCO₂e in 2030. Alignment with the 1.5°C target would require a
fivefold increase in ambition, leading to emission levels around 25 CO₂e in 2030 (see Figure 2).29

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The Paris Agreement states that parties shall communicate an NDC every five years,30 and that each submission shall constitute a
progression in terms of ambition.31 Parties conveyed their first round of targets prior to COP21, and were due to submit new or
updated plans in 2020.32 COP26, originally scheduled for November 2020, would then take stock of the collective level of ambition
of these plans vis-à-vis the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. The postponement of the COP by one year has in practice
(albeit not formally) extended the deadline for submitting NDCs to ‘ahead of COP26’.

Where do we stand?

The delay of COP26 has given countries more time to put forward NDCs and longer-term decarbonization targets. This effort gained
significant traction when China pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions before 2030, during the general
debate of the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September 2020.33 Then, in November 2020, the UK submitted
its NDC, pledging a 68 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 (based on 1990 levels)34 and later added a 2035 target of 78 per
cent.35 The EU has, moreover, put forward a 55 per cent reduction target relative to 1990 levels,36 with some countries within the
bloc going even further, including Germany, which agreed on a 65 per cent reduction target.37
 Biden has fundamentally changed the US’s position on climate change,
The election of President
leading to, among other things, the country re-joining the Paris Agreement .38 At a specially convened
Leaders Summit on Climate – hosted by the US – the Biden administration presented an NDC with an emission

reduction target of 50 –52 per cent 39 (based on 2005 levels, which is equivalent to 40–43 per cent below 1990
levels40). During the summit, countries including Canada, Japan and others pledged more ambitious NDC targets.41

While there is more pressure on governments to act on climate change, due to its increasingly devastating impacts, there are also
more opportunities for carbon mitigation through available alternative technologies and systems, as well as falling renewable energy
costs (see Box 2).

Table 1 details the NDC targets put forward by G20 countries prior to COP21 in Paris and the extent to which these have since been
revised. The updated NDCs have been assessed by the independent body, Climate Action Tracker, which has analysed to what extent
the NDCs align with the 1.5°C pathway. The analysis also looks at domestic policies and actions, which are important as they provide
an indication of whether governments are following through on their promises.

[TABLE 1 OMITTED]
As of September 2021, 85 countries and the EU27 had submitted new or updated NDCs, covering around half of global GHG
emissions. Some parties, like China and Japan, have proposed new targets but not yet submitted them formally while around 70
parties – including G20 countries like India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – have neither proposed nor communicated a revised NDC
target. Several parties have, moreover, submitted new NDCs without increasing ambition. These include Australia, Brazil, Indonesia,
Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam.42 In some of these cases, adjustments in baselines mean that
ambition has de facto decreased (Brazil and Mexico).43 Analysis published by Climate Action Tracker in September 2021 shows that
the NDC updates only narrow the gap to 1.5°C by, at best, 15 per cent (4 GtCO₂e). This leaves a large gap of 20–23 GtCO₂e.44

Similar analysis from the UN underscores the need for further NDC enhancements.45 If all current NDCs are implemented, total GHG
emissions (not including emissions associated with land use) in 2030 are projected to be 16.3 per cent higher than in 2010, and 5 per
cent higher than in 2019. The emissions of the parties that have submitted new or updated NDCs are, however, expected to fall by
around 12 per cent by the end of the decade, compared to 2010 levels. The UN report also highlights the importance of providing
support to developing countries, as many of these have submitted NDCs that are – at least in part – conditional on the receipt of
additional financial resources, capacity-building support, and technology transfer, among other things. If such support is
forthcoming, global emissions could peak before 2030, with emission levels at the end of this decade being 1.4 per cent lower than
in 2019. However, even the full implementation of both the unconditional and conditional elements of the NDCs would lead to an
overshoot of the targets of the Paris Agreement – as alignment with 1.5°C and 2°C require cuts of 45 per cent and 25 per cent,
respectively, by 2030 (relative to 2010 levels).46

A large number of countries are also making more long-term net zero emissions or carbon neutrality pledges. As of September 2021,
just over 130 countries had made such commitments, but not all of them have formally presented them to the UNFCCC.47 Examples
include large economies like China, Japan, Brazil, the US, South Africa, South Korea, and the EU, as well as climate-vulnerable
developing countries like the Marshall Islands, Barbados, Kiribati and Bangladesh.48 Climate
Action Tracker estimates
that if these long-term targets – and the NDCs – are fully implemented, global warming could be
limited to 2°C.49 Most of the net zero pledges are, however, formulated in vague terms that are not consistent with good
practice. The long-term targets are, moreover, only credible if they are backed up by ambitious and robust 2030 NDCs,50 given that
substantial cuts in emissions must occur this decade. An additional concern that has been raised when it comes to net zero pledges
is that they may encourage reliance on negative emissions technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS),
which have still to be tested at scale to assess land requirement, efficiency and economic viability.51

[BOX 1 OMITTED]
The challenge of closing the gap

Bridging the gap between current NDCs and targets that would keep warming to 1.5°C is a
defining challenge for governments ahead of COP26 . As mentioned, UNEP estimates that the ambition of 2030
targets would need to be enhanced fivefold vis-à-vis pledges made in 2015 to align with a 1.5°C pathway.53 Several large emitters –
including the US and the EU – have now submitted their new or updated NDCs. According to Climate Action Tracker, the UK’s target
is considered to be compatible with a 1.5°C pathway, while those of the US, EU, Japan and Canada are classified as ‘almost
sufficient’.54
It is critical that all countries that have not yet submitted a new or updated NDC do so, and that these pledges are aligned with 1.5°C.
It is equally important that countries that have submitted unambitious NDCs revisit their targets. The Paris Agreement states that
parties may revise existing NDCs at any time, if the purpose is to enhance ambition.55 The G20 countries have a particularly
important role to play. In July 2021, the Italian G20 presidency hosted the first ever G20 Climate and Energy Ministerial meeting. In
the final communique the countries in the G20 stated that they ‘intend to update or communicate ambitious NDCs by COP26’.56
The importance of action from all members of the G20 is clear, as they collectively account for 80 per cent of global emissions and as
UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, ‘there is no pathway to this [1.5°C] goal without the leadership of the G20’.57

With only a few weeks to go it is, however, unlikely that the 20–23 GtCO ₂e gap in targets will be
closed by COP26. At the UK-hosted COP26 ministerial in July, a number of ministers stressed that parties would need to
respond to any gap remaining by the Glasgow conference. Some suggested that such a response could include a ‘clear political
commitment’ to keep 1.5°C within reach, a recognition of the gap, and a plan to bridge it. More specific proposals of actions that
could be taken, as part of the response, to keep the 1.5°C pathway alive were also discussed. Suggestions included, but were not
limited to, encouraging countries whose NDCs are not consistent with 1.5°C to bring their 2030 targets in line before 2025 (when the
third round of NDCs are due); calling for parties to submit concrete long-term strategies for reaching net zero; and/or sending clear
signals to markets through actions like phasing out unabated coal, carbon pricing, fossil fuel subsidy reform, nature-based solutions,
and decarbonizing transport.58

Achieving a positive COP26 outcome

The ultimate benchmark for a high ambition outcome at COP26 is whether the new or updated
NDCs are ambitious enough to align with a 1.5°C pathway . For many communities and ecosystems, the
threat of different climate impacts between 1.5 °C and 2° C – not to mention 3°C, 4°C or 5°C – is
existential . Each increment of warming is anticipated to drive increasingly devastating and
costly impacts , including extreme heatwaves , rising sea levels , biod iversity loss , reductions in
crop yields , and widespread ecosystems damage including to coral reefs and fisheries .59

Keeping the goal of 1.5°C within reach will require substantial action this decade. Long-term targets to achieve net
zero emissions or carbon neutrality have the potential to be powerful drivers of
decarbonization but need to be supported by ambitious NDCs as well as concrete policies and
sufficient investment .
Should we reach COP26 without sufficient ambition on NDCs, parties would need to present a plan for how ambition will be raised in
the early 2020s. This could include a COP decision or a political statement underscoring the need to keep warming to 1.5°C and
inviting parties to revisit their NDCs earlier than the Paris timetable dictates (for instance in 2023 instead of 2025).60 To
support
more ambitious action, countries should look to expand international collaboration and
accelerate decarbonization in key sectors. At COP26, parties can help boost the credibility of
their pledges by showcasing policies , measures and sector initiatives that will accelerate
decarbonization, including on the phase out of unabated coal and the increased use of electric
vehicles (see Box 3).

[BOX 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In the run-up to COP26, the UK government is mobilizing its counterparts and non-state actors to drive accelerated action on
phasing out the use of unabated coal,65 accelerating the deployment of electric vehicles,66 protecting and restoring nature (nature-
based solutions67), and aligning financial flows with the goals of the Paris Agreement.68 The role of the private sector is crucial in
the transition to net zero economies and is recognized within the framework of the UNFCCC, as they can deliver funding, innovation
and technology deployment at a pace and scale beyond that of most governments (see Box 1). It is hoped that some of these
initiatives will lead to plurilateral agreements at or ahead of COP26, which could enhance the credibility of mitigation pledges and
help keep the 1.5°C target within reach. Being able to showcase a package consisting of ambitious NDCs ,
plurilateral deals, and national policies at COP26 could generate positive momentum and
create a sense of inevitability around the transition to net zero societies.

[BOX 3 OMITTED]
03

Support to climate-vulnerable developing countries

Increased action on climate finance , adaptation, and loss and damage is critical for supporting climate-
vulnerable developing countries , strengthening trust and raising ambition on mitigation .
The year 2020 was one of the warmest on record.80 As COVID-19 ravaged the world, extreme weather events continued to cause
severe devastation. In Bangladesh, torrential rains submerged a quarter of the country,81 resulting in hundreds of deaths, mass
displacement and damage to more than a million homes.82 Record-breaking floods in Sudan83 and Uganda84 also displaced
hundreds of thousands, while super cyclone Amphan raged across South Asia.85 Extreme weather events were also a defining
feature of the summer of 2021.

An unprecedented heatwave may have killed almost 500 people in British Columbia,86 as well as a billion marine animals along the
Canadian coastline.87 In the Chinese province of Henan people drowned in the subway after a year’s worth of rain fell in just three
days.88 Germany and Belgium also experienced death and destruction as a result of severe flooding,89 while villages in Greece
burned.90

The impacts of climate change are striking even harder than many anticipated,91 and as temperatures continue to rise extreme
weather events are increasing in both frequency and intensity. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C is key to avoiding the most
catastrophic events, but substantial measures must also be undertaken to adapt to climate change impacts and build resilience. As
the summer of 2021 shows, no country is spared. It is, however, those who have emitted the least that are most at risk,92 and in
many countries that are disproportionately affected by climate change – such as the least developed countries (LDCs)93 – financial
constraints impede their ability to invest in adaptation, build resilience and deal with loss and damage.94 COVID-19 has aggravated
this challenge: while industrialized countries have implemented unprecedented stimulus measures to support their economies – and
vaccinated large parts of their populations – many developing countries remain in the midst of a health and economic catastrophe.

Scaled up action on climate finance , adaptation and loss and damage are – in addition to increased
ambition on mitigation – key priorities for climate-vulnerable nations ahead of COP26. Raised
ambition and concrete delivery in these areas are critical for supporting those at the frontline
of climate change, key to building trust , and could encourage some parties to raise the ambition
of their NDC pledges . The implementation of many NDCs is , in addition, at least partly conditional
upon receiving increased levels of finance , as well as other types of support.95
Honouring the $100 billion goal

In 2009, developed countries committed to mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation in
developing countries.96 This pledge was subsequently formalized in the Cancun Agreements in 201097 and reaffirmed in the Paris
Agreement in 2015. The resources provided were to be ‘new and additional’98 and come from a variety of public and private
sources.99 The $100 billion goal is a core element of the bargain underpinning the Paris Agreement.100 While achieving the
mitigation and adaptation goals of the agreement will require trillions of dollars in investment – of which most will need to come
from the private sector – the delivery of the $100 billion is critical to building trust between developed and developing countries,101
and is important for raising ambition on mitigation.102

The OECD estimates that $79.6 billion was mobilized in 2019, which is the most recent year for which official figures are
available.103 In 2018, the figure was $78.9 billion, and in 2017 it was $71.2 billion.104 Though the verified figures for 2020 will not
be available until 2022, it is clear the target was missed.105

Developed countries have, moreover, not yet been able to show that the pledge will be honoured in 2021, nor demonstrate
conclusively how it will be met in the 2022–24 period.106
The pledge by developed nations to mobilize $100 billion to developing nations by 2020 is a commitment made in the UNFCCC
process more than a decade ago. It’s time to deliver. How can we expect nations to make more ambitious climate commitments for
tomorrow if today’s have not yet been met?107

Patricia Espinosa, 23 July 2021

How the goal is achieved matters. Only around one-fifth of bilateral climate finance is allocated to the LDCs,108 and locally led
projects receive low priority.109 There are also concerns related to overreporting and lack of additionality. Oxfam estimates, for
instance, that 80 per cent of public climate finance provided over the 2017–18 period took the form of loans or other non-grant
instruments, and that the actual grant equivalent only accounted for around half of the total amount of finance reported.110
Furthermore, the Center for Global Development has found that almost half of the climate finance reported between 2009 and 2019
cannot be considered ‘new and additional’.111 There is, finally, an urgent need to close the adaptation finance gap (see next
section),112 and facilitate access to finance.113

It is widely recognized that honouring the $100 billion goal is a prerequisite for success at
COP26 .114 The hitherto failure of developed countries to provide clarity on the issue is creating mistrust between countries,115
with the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (who is also an adviser to the climate-vulnerable
countries) conveying that, ‘if the money is not delivered before November, then there is little point in climate-vulnerable nations
showing up in Glasgow to do business with governments that break their promises’.116 The chair of the LDC Group has also made it
clear that, ‘[t]here will be no COP26 deal without a finance deal’. 117

The G7 countries play a critical role in mobilizing the $100 billion,118 and there was a hope that G7 leaders would increase their
bilateral commitments substantially – and provide clarity on the $100 billion119 – when they convened in Cornwall in June 2021.
Some new pledges were made. Canada, for instance, committed to doubling its climate finance through to 2025 (to CAD $5.3
billion), and Germany pledged to increase its annual commitments from €4 billion to €6 billion by 2025 at the latest.120 The G7
members collectively also committed to ‘each increase and improve’ their public climate finance contributions, and announced they
would develop a new international initiative – ‘Build Back Better for the World’121 – the details of which have yet to be fleshed out.
However, many developing country officials – and many observers worldwide – expressed disappointment with the summit
outcome, with the climate minister of Pakistan describing the G7 commitments as ‘peanuts’.122

Several announcements on climate finance were also made during the 76th Session of the UNGA in September 2021. Most
importantly, President Joe Biden pledged to double US climate finance (again) from the previously
committed $5.7 billion to $11.4 billion per year by 2024. Actual delivery is, however,
contingent on congressional approval .123 The EU – which already contributes around $25 billion
in climate finance per year – also stepped up , announcing an additional €4 billion until 2027,124 while Italian Prime
Minister Mario Draghi conveyed that Italy would shortly be announcing a new climate finance commitment.125 Though the US

pledge in particular has been described as a critical step forward that ‘puts the $100 billion
within reach’ ,126 more will need to be done.127

$100 billion is a bare minimum. But the agreement has not been kept. A clear plan to fulfil this pledge is not just
about the economics of climate change ; it is about establishing trust in the multilateral
system .128
António Guterres, 9 July 2021
 AT: Nuke War Outweighs

Nuke war doesn’t cause extinction

Samuel Miller-McDonald 19, PhD Candidate in Geography and the Environment at the
University of Oxford, “Deathly Salvation”, The Trouble, 1/4/2019, https://www.the-
trouble.com/content/2019/1/4/deathly-salvation
A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a
nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that
firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable— is based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that
can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct.
Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices .
An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut
the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy
infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive.

In the near term, emissions would almost certainly rise as militaries are some of the world’s largest emitters. Given what we know of
human history, though, conflict may be the only way to build the mass social cohesion necessary for undertaking the kind of huge,
collective action needed for global sequestration and energy transition. Like the 20th century’s world wars, a nuclear exchange could
serve as an economic leveler. It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil
fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one
that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to
block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

What we do know is that humans

can survive and recover from war, probably even a nuclear one.
Humans cannot recover from runaway climate change. Nuclear war is not an inevitable
extinction event; six degrees of warming is.

It makes nuclear war inevitable in every region

Dr. Michael T. Klare 20, Five Colleges Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College, Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute, BA and MA from
Columbia University, Member of the Board of Director at the Arms Control Association, Defense
Correspondent for The Nation, “How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood of Nuclear
War”, The Nation, 1/13/2020, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-defense-
climate-change/

Climbing world temperatures and rising sea levels will diminish the supply of food and water in many
resource-deprived areas, increasing the risk of widespread starvation, social unrest, and human
flight. Global corn production, for example, is projected to fall by as much as 14 percent in a 2°C warmer
world, according to research cited in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Food
scarcity and crop failures risk pushing hundreds of millions of people into overcrowded cities,
where the likelihood of pandemics, ethnic strife, and severe storm damage is bound to increase. All of
this will impose an immense burden on human institutions . Some states may collapse or break up into
a collection of warring chiefdoms—all fighting over sources of water and other vital resources.

A similar momentum is now evident in the emerging nuclear arms race, with all three major powers—
China, Russia, and the United States—rushing to deploy a host of new munitions. This dangerous process
commenced a decade ago, when Russian and Chinese leaders sought improvements to their nuclear arsenals and President Barack
Obama, in order to secure Senate approval of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010, agreed to initial funding for the
modernization of all three legs of America’s strategic triad, which encompasses submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and
bombers. (New START, which mandated significant reductions in US and Russian arsenals, will expire in February 2021 unless
renewed by the two countries.) Although Obama initiated the modernization of the nuclear triad, the Trump administration has
sought funds to proceed with their full-scale production, at an estimated initial installment of $500 billion over 10 years.

Even during the initial modernization program of the Obama era, Russian and Chinese leaders were sufficiently alarmed to hasten
their own nuclear acquisitions. Both countries were already in the process of modernizing their stockpiles—Russia to replace Cold
War–era systems that had become unreliable, China to provide its relatively small arsenal with enhanced capabilities. Trump’s
decision to acquire a whole new suite of ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and bombers has added momentum to these efforts.
And with all three major powers upgrading their arsenals, the other nuclear-weapon states—led by India, Pakistan, and North Korea
—have been expanding their stockpiles as well. Moreover, with Trump’s recent decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, all major powers are developing missile delivery systems for a regional nuclear war such as might
erupt in Europe, South Asia, or the western Pacific.

It makes nuclear war inevitable in every region

 Warming Turns All Impacts

Turns all other impacts.

Cribb ’17 [Julian; 2017; Principal of Julian Cribb & Associates, Fellow of the Australian Academy
of Technological Sciences and Engineering, former Director of National Awareness at the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Surviving the 21st Century, “The
Baker,” Ch. 4, p. 91-93; DML]

This event, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, happened only about ten million years
after the dinosaurs were smashed by an asteroid impact. This ‘hyperthermal’ period took place quite suddenly (in geological terms)
—in less than 2000 years—and lasted for about 170,000 years before the planet again cooled. The heat spike was
accompanied by a major wipe-out of ocean life in particular, though most small land mammals survived. Investigating the
records of old marine sediments Zeebe was able to show there had been a sharp, 70 %, leap in atmospheric CO 2
concentrations at the time. However, he concluded there was only sufficient carbon available to force the climate to warm by
1–3 °C and that some other mechanism must have been triggered by the initial warming, which then drove the
Earth’s temperature to fever pitch, up by another 4–6 °C (Zeebe et al. 2009). This process is the ‘ runaway global
warming ‘ which now menaces us.

The significance of PETM is that it appears that about the

same volume of carbon was dumped by natural processes into
the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans as
humans are currently dumping with the burning of fossil fuels and
clearing of the world’s forests—about 3 trillion tonnes in all—and it was this that triggered the hyperthermal
surge in planetary heating.

As to the mechanism that could suddenly release a huge amount of extra carbon into the
atmosphere and oceans and project global temperatures up by 6–9 °C, the most likely
explanation is the one described at the start of this chapter—the rapid melting and escape of billions of tonnes of
frozen methane, CH 4 , currently locked in tundra and seabed sediments. This phenomenon, dubbed the “clathrate gun ”
(Kennett et al. 2003), is now linked by scientists not only with the PETM event but also, according to palaeontologist Peter Ward,
with the Great Death of the Permian, the worst annihilation in the history of life on Earth (Ward 2008). The significance of the
clathrates is that they consist of methane, a gas that is 72 times more powerful than CO 2 as a climate forcing agent in the short run,
and 25 times stronger over a century or so. The clathrates could be released by a process known as ‘ ocean overturning ’, a shift in
global current patterns caused by moderate warming, which brings warmer water from the surface down into the depths, to melt
the deposits of frozen gas. Unlocking several trillion tonnes of methane would cause global temperatures to rocket upwards sharply.
Once such a process gets under way, most experts consider, warming will happen so fast it is doubtful if humans could do anything
to stop it even if they instantly ceased all burning of fossil fuels.

This ‘double whammy’ of global warming caused by humans releasing three trillion tonnes of fossil carbon which
then precipitates an uncontrollable second phase driven by the melting of all or part of the five trillion tonnes of natural methane
deposits (Buff et & Archer 2004) is the principal threat to civilisation in the twenty-first century and, combined with nuclear
conflict (Chap. 4), to the survival of the human species.
The IPCC’s fifth report states that the melting of between 37 and 81 % of the world’s tundra permafrost is ‘virtually certain’ adding
“Thereis a high risk of substantial carbon and methane emissions as a result of permafrost
thawing ” ((IPCC 2014a), p. 74). This could involve the venting of as much as 920 billion tonnes of carbon. However, the Panel did
not venture an estimate for methane emissions from the melting of the far larger seabed clathrates and a number of scientists have
publicly criticised the world’s leading climate body for remaining so close-lipped about this mega-threat to human existence. The
IPCC’s reticence is thought to be founded on a lack of adequate scientific data to make a pronouncement with confidence—and
partly to fear of the mischief which the fossil fuels lobby would make of any premature estimates. However, it critics argue, by the
time we know for sure that the Arctic and seabed methane is escaping in large volumes, it will be too late to do anything about it.
The difficulty is that no-one knows how quickly the Earth will heat up, as this depends on something that cannot be scientifically
predicted: the behaviour of the whole human species and the timeliness with which we act. Failure to abolish carbon
emissions in time will make a 4–5 °C rise in temperature likely . As to what that may mean, here are some
eminent opinions :

• Warming of 5 °C will mean the planet can support fewer than 1 billion people—Hans-Joachim Shellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research (Kanter 2009)

• With temperature increases of 4–7 °C billions of people will have to move and there will be very severe
conflict—Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics (Kanter 2009)
• Food shortages, refugee crises, flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a
climate so drastically altered it may be dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year—IPCC Fifth
Assessment (IPCC 2014b)

• Corn and soybean yields in the US may decrease by 63–82 %—Schlenker and Roberts, Arizona State University (Schlenker &
Roberts 2009a)

• Up to 35% of the Earth’s species will be committed to extinction—Chris Thomas, University of Leeds (Thomas
et al. 2004)

• Total polar melting combined with thermal expansion could involve sea
levels eventually rising by 65 m (180 ft), i.e. to the
20th floor of tall buildings, drowning most of the world’s coastal cities and displacing a third or more of
the human population (Winkelmann et al. 2015)

• Intensifiedglobal instability, hunger, poverty and conflict. Food and water shortages,
pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters
in regions across the globe—Chuck Hagel, US Secretary for Defence (Hagel 2014)

• “Almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggles to adapt… billions of people forced to relocate.… worsening
tensions especially over resources… armed conflict is likely and nuclear war is possible”— Kurt
Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Campell et al. 2007).

• “Unless we get control of (global warming), it will mean our extinction eventually”—Helen Berry,
Canberra University (Snow & Hannam 2014).
 Outweighs Everything

Warming outweighs – famine, sea level rise, natural disasters – extinction first –
regardless of probability
Bostrom 13 – Prof, Faculty of Philosophy @ Oxford, Director of the Future of Humanity
Institute in the Oxford Martin School

Nick, “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority”, February, Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 15–31,
February 2013, CMR

I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three
outcomes: 1  Peace. 2  A nuclear war that kills 99 per cent of the world’s existing population. 3  A nuclear war that kills 100 per cent. 2 would be worse
than 1, and 3 would be worse than 2. Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between 1 and 2. I believe that the

difference between 2 and 3 is very much greater. The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years. Civilisation began
only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind , these few thousand years may be only a tiny

fraction of the whole of civilised human history . The difference between 2 and 3 may thus be the difference
between this tiny fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so
far is only a fraction of a second (Parfit, 1984, pp. 453–454). To calculate the loss associated with an existential catastrophe, we must consider how much

value would come to exist in its absence. It turns out that the ultimate potential for Earth-originating
intelligent life is literally astronomical. One gets a large number even if one confines one’s consideration to the potential for biological human
beings living on Earth. If we suppose with Parfit that our planet will remain habitable for at least another billion years, and we assume that at least one billion people could live
on it sustainably, then the potential exist for at least 10^16 human lives of normal duration. These lives could also be considerably better than the average contemporary human
life, which is so often marred by disease, poverty, injustice, and various biological limitations that could be partly overcome through continuing technological and moral progress.

However, the relevant figure is not how many people could live on Earth but how many descendants we could have in total.
One lower bound of the number of biological human life-years in the future accessible universe (based on current cosmological estimates) is 10^34 years.7 Another estimate,
which assumes that future minds will be mainly implemented in computational hardware instead of biological neuronal wetware, produces a lower bound of 1054 human-brain-
emulation subjective life-years (or 10^71 basic computational operations) (Bostrom, 2003).8 If we make the less conservative assumption that future civilisations could
eventually press close to the absolute bounds of known physics (using some as yet unimagined technology), we get radically higher estimates of the amount of computation and
memory storage that is achievable and thus of the number of years of subjective experience that could be realised.9 Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates,

the expected loss of an existential

which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonisation and software minds, we find that

catastrophe is greater than the value of 10^16 human lives. This implies that the expected value of reducing
existential risk by a mere one millionth of one percentage point is at least a hundred times the value of a
million human lives. The more technologically comprehensive estimate of 1054 human-brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 1052 lives of ordinary length)
makes the same point even more starkly. Even if we give this allegedly lower bound on the cumulative output potential of a technologically mature civilisation a mere 1 per cent

the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of

chance of being correct, we find that

one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives. One might
consequently argue that even the tiniest reduction of existential risk has an expected value greater than

that of the definite provision of any ‘ordinary’ good, such as the direct benefit of saving 1 billion lives. And,
further, that the absolute value of the indirect effect of saving 1 billion lives on the total cumulative amount of existential risk—positive or negative—is almost certainly larger

the loss in expected value resulting from an

than the positive value of the direct benefit of such an action.10 Maxipok These considerations suggest that

existential catastrophe is so enormous that the objective of reducing existential risks should be a
dominant consideration whenever we act out of an impersonal concern for humankind as a whole. It may be useful to adopt the following rule of thumb for
such impersonal moral action
 Linear Impacts

Each tenth of a degree matters and saves millions of lives

Aronoff & Denvir 21 [Kate, staff writer at the New Republic, writing fellow at In These Times, Daniel, visiting fellow in
International and Public Affairs at Brown Univ, “Capitalism Can’t Fix the Climate Crisis,” Jacobin, 08/25/21,
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/capitalism-climate-crisis-global-green-new-deal-clean-energy-fossil-fuel-industry, accessed
08/26/21, JCR]

The text of the Paris Agreement says that warming should be constrained to well below two
degrees Celsius. 1.5 degrees is an aspiration. It’s good to understand where that demand comes from; it
has been a standing call from the folks in climate-vulnerable countries in the Global South, for whom the
difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is huge. The folks talking about 1.5 degrees have been marching through the
halls of UN climate talks, chanting “1.5 to survive,” because for low-lying island states, warming of 1.5 degrees
represents an existential threat. Currently we are on track for about 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming.
That gives us a punishingly short window in which to meet even two degrees, which is a bit of a fabrication; there’s some debate
about where the two-degree target came from. Some people credit that to the economist William Nordhaus, who is not the most
reliable source on a lot of these things. But there’s something comforting about a target. There’s something comforting about saying
that this thing that is happening is far-off, and that we can potentially avoid it. We have a bit of time, and two degrees gives us more
time than 1.5 degrees. Reaching targets has been the popular goal. That’s what you see in the fossil fuel industry assessments. But
the conversation about targets can sometimes obscure what’s actually happening. It’s not as if somebody who is living through a
hurricane or a natural disaster will say, “Oh no, we’ve hit two degrees Celsius.” The
climate crisis is playing out all
around us. There’s not a point at which we cross the boundary toward a disastrous future. Every tenth of a degree of
warming that we avoid makes an enormous amount of difference, saving on the order of tens of thousands
of lives. If we cross 1.5 or even two degrees of warming, it’s not that we should all pack up , go
home, and wait to die. There are still millions of lives that can be saved by preventing each
additional tenth of a degree of warming.

Every ½ degree beyond 1.5 degrees puts hundreds of millions at-risk

Gallagher, January-February 2022, KELLY SIMS GALLAGHER is Academic Dean, Professor of

Energy and Environmental Policy, and Director of the Climate Policy Lab at Tuft University’s
Fletcher School. She served as Senior Policy Adviser in the White House’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy during the Obama administration, The Coming Carbon Tsunami, Developing
Countries Need a New Growth Model—Before It’s Too Late,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/coming-carbon-tsunami

Although world leaders have announced their intention to limit the global temperature rise to
1.5 degrees Celsius, the planet is currently on track to experience warming far in excess of that
level. The consequences of this will be devastating: according to the latest report by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every additional 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming
beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will cause “clearly discernible increases in the intensity and
frequency of hot extremes . . . as well as agricultural and ecological droughts.” In the event of
two degrees Celsius warming, extreme heat waves that normally would have occurred only
once in 50 years will likely occur 14 times during the same time frame. Three hundred and fifty
million more people risk being be exposed to deadly heat: residents of Karachi, Pakistan, and
Kolkata, India, for example, could experience, on an annual basis, conditions like those of the
heat wave that struck the Indian subcontinent in 2015, which killed thousands. These changes
will afflict the developed and the developing world alike; there is no alternative but to
collaborate to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
 Poverty
emissions disproportionately impact vulnerable and marginalized populations –
causes hunger, disease, and increased physiological violence
Parncutt 19 (Richard Parncutt, Professor @ the Centre for Systematic Musicology, University
of Graz, “The Human Cost of Anthropogenic Global Warming: Semi-Quantitative Prediction and
the 1,000-Tonne Rule,” Front. Psychol., 10/16/19, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323,
TM)

Greenhouse-gas emissions are indirectly causing future deaths by multiple mechanisms. For
example, reduced food and water supplies will exacerbate hunger, disease, violence, and
migration. How will anthropogenic global warming (AGW) affect global mortality due to poverty around and beyond 2100?
Roughly, how much burned fossil carbon corresponds to one future death? What are the psychological, medical, political, and
economic implications? Predicted death tolls are crucial for policy formulation, but uncertainty increases with temporal
distance from the present and estimates may be biased. Order-of-magnitude estimates should refer to literature
from diverse relevant disciplines. The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 1012 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 109
future premature deaths (10% of projected maximum global population), spread over one to two centuries. This zeroth-order
prediction is relative and in addition to existing preventable death rates. It lies between likely best- and worst-case scenarios of
roughly 3 × 108 and 3 × 109, corresponding to plus/minus one standard deviation on a logarithmic scale in a Gaussian probability
distribution. It implies that one future premature death is caused every time roughly 1,000 (300–3,000)
tonnes of carbon are burned. Therefore, any fossil-fuel project that burns millions of tons of
carbon is probably indirectly killing thousands of future people. The prediction may be
considered valid, accounting for multiple indirect links between AGW and death rates in a top-down approach, but unreliable due to
the uncertainty of climate change feedback and interactions between physical, biological, social, and political climate impacts (e.g.,
ecological cascade effects and co-extinction). Given universal agreement on the value of human lives, a death toll of this
unprecedented magnitude must be avoided at all costs. As a clear political message, the “1,000-tonne rule” can
be used to defend human rights, especially in developing countries, and to clarify that climate change is primarily a human rights
issue. Introduction Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a human rights issue (Amnesty International, n.d.; Caney, 2010). It is
violating the rights of future people—especially, in developing countries that will suffer the most. Lancet Countdown on health and
climate change has warned that “A rapidly changing climate has dire implications for every aspect of
human life, exposing vulnerable populations to extremes of weather, altering patterns of
infectious disease, and compromising food security, safe drinking water, and clean air” (Watts et
al., 2018). UN Environment (2019) found that “nearly one quarter of all deaths globally in 2012 could be
attributed to modifiable environmental risks, with a greater portion occurring in populations in
a vulnerable situation and in developing countries” (p. 22). From a legal perspective, “a right to a healthy
environment in various formulations is recognized by the constitutions of 118 nations around the world” (Kravchenko, 2007, p. 539).
Progress toward global emissions reductions has been consistently slow (Ge et al., 2019). Contrary to the primary aim of the United
Nations Climate Change Conferences held yearly since 1995, emissions increased by 2.2% per year on average between 2005 and
2015 (Le Quéré et al., 2018) and peaked again in 2018 (International Energy Agency, 2019). The current rate of carbon emissions is
some 10 times greater than the last time global mean surface temperature (GMST) was relatively high, 56 million years ago
(Gingerich, 2019). AGW has therefore become a global emergency (Ripple et al., 2017). In responding to this challenge, it may help
to express the urgency in new terms by shifting attention from economic to human costs, which are incomparably greater (Nolt,
2011a, 2015). The aim of this contribution is to defend the human rights of present and future people from the fatal indirect
consequences of AGW caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and AGW by addressing the quantitative relationship between
fossil carbon burned now and future deaths attributable to AGW. The broader context involves interculturality and anti-racism

research. The failure of rich countries and corporations to adequately mitigate AGW is
racist in the sense that the protagonists are mainly white and the victims are mainly black (cf.
Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014). AGW may also be considered sexist, given known gender differences in
effects of AGW on health and life expectancy (World Health Organisation, 2011). AGW is ageist in that the
emissions of today’s older people will disproportionately affect today’s young people (Page, 1999).
How much fossil carbon must be burned to cause a future human death? Despite the inherent uncertainties, it is interesting to
attempt a zeroth-order estimate, based on semi-quantitative considerations of the current state of global climate, the current global
rate of emissions, and the complex, non-linear relationships among the amount of carbon burned, corresponding changes in GMST,
current mortality in connection with poverty, and future death tolls. The question is explicitly interdisciplinary: it involves humanities
(e.g., philosophy, history), sciences (e.g., physics, mathematics, statistics, psychology), practically oriented disciplines (e.g., law,
medicine, international development), and disciplines that mix these groups (economics, sociology). “The greatest potential for
contributions from psychology comes not from direct application of psychological concepts but from integrating psychological
knowledge and methods with knowledge from other fields of science and technology” (Stern, 2011, p. 314). Of all the living and non-
living things that humans encounter in their everyday lives, human lives are usually considered the most valuable (Harris, 2006)—
regardless of the assumed value of non-human life (Kellert, 1997). Moreover, people are universally considered inherently more
important than money (cf. Sayer, 2011); this general idea holds even if a human life can be assigned monetary value corresponding
to the amount that others are willing to pay to save it. The value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) according to this criterion may
effectively be of the order of $100,000 (Hirth et al., 2000). Can the continued use of fossil fuels be justified after comparing today’s
health and longevity benefits with future health and longevity deficits due to AGW? The following text begins with a summary of
ways in which AGW will shorten human lives in the future. The idea of a human life as a mathematical unit of value is then
introduced. After a consideration of the use of numbers and words in public discourse on AGW, and the psychological mechanisms
that might distort estimates of future death tolls, an approximate top-down estimate is presented for the relationship between
carbon burned now and deaths caused in the future. Ethical and political implications are addressed. How Anthropogenic Global
Warming will Cause Premature Deaths Historically, burning carbon has had a large positive effect on human life expectancy and
quality of life (Steinberger and Roberts, 2010; Jorgenson, 2014). Without explicitly considering AGW, United Nations (2017b)
estimated that from 1960 to 2100, global mean life expectancy will have increased from 46 to 83 years, among other things due to
increasing availability of energy for agriculture, heating, cooking, transport, manufacture, and construction. But carbon-based
economies are also causing life-years to be lost in the future. The political challenge, therefore, is to maintain increases in life
expectancy due to industrialization while minimizing losses in life expectancy due to AGW by replacing carbon-based power sources
by sustainable ones. The following brief summary of widely accepted climate
impact predictions illustrates the
magnitude of the problem: 1. Rising seas will threaten coastal homes and cities. Salination of
agricultural soils will destroy farming land. 2. Dry areas will become drier with longer droughts, loss
of ground water, and deglaciation. Agriculture will be seriously affected. 3. Serious storms (hurricanes, cyclones, and
tornadoes) will become more frequent and dangerous (Knutson et al., 2015), destroying crops and
buildings, and causing floods and epidemics (cf. the cholera outbreak that followed Cyclone Idai in Mozambique in
2019; Nguyen et al., 2019). 4. Heat waves will become more frequent and intense. When wet-bulb temperatures
approach human skin temperature, body temperature can no longer be regulated by perspiration—with
fatal consequences. 5. The current rate of species extinction (biodiversity loss)—already 100–1,000 times
faster than without humans—will continue to increase (sixth mass extinction event). Each of these points will affect
supplies of food and fresh water, increasing current death rates due to hunger and disease. In addition, AGW will affect the
nutritional content of staple crops such as rice and wheat; when carbon dioxide (CO2) levels double relative to pre-industrial levels,
an additional 175 million people may be zinc deficient; 122 million, protein deficient (Smith and Myers, 2018). These points may
interact with each other, causing ecological cascade effects and co-extinctions. AGW will also increase the incidence and magnitude
of international conflicts including water wars (Petersen-Perlman et al., 2017). There is an additional
risk of “runaway”
AGW, in which GMST continues to rise after anthropogenic emissions stop— driven by natural
positive feedback processes that are not canceled by negative ones: 1. When ice melts, less
radiated heat from the sun is reflected back into space, so more is absorbed, causing more ice to melt (Albedo). 2. As
the carbon content of oceans and soils increases, their ability to absorb CO2 falls (Gattuso et al.,
2015). 3. When permafrost (tundra) peat thaws, it releases CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O),
causing more warming and melting (Voigt et al., 2017). Permafrost peat contains about 1,700 Pg carbon—about twice
as much as the entire atmosphere—of which 30% (68–508 Pg) could be released by 2100 (MacDougall et al., 2012). Atmospheric
CH4 concentration has unexpectedly accelerated in recent years (Nisbet et al., 2018). 4. Forests
will dry out at the same
time as weather conditions that cause fires (dry soil, high temperature, low humidity, and high winds) become
more frequent. Fires produce CO2, causing more warming and drying (Gabbert, 2018; Reidmiller, 2018).
Forest dieback can be caused by a combination of drought and bark-beetle infestation, caused in turn by AGW (Sangüesa-Barreda et
al., 2015). Beetle-caused dieback can switch a forest from a carbon sink to a carbon source (Hansen et al., 2013a). Between 1984 and
2016, the European forest area affected by mortality doubled—largely due to AGW and land-use changes (Senf et al., 2018). 5.
Extreme temperatures caused by climate change will increase human energy consumption for
heating and cooling (International Energy Agency, 2019). When feedbacks are taken into account, the global carbon budget
for limiting AGW to 2 or 1.5°C is reduced by “several years of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions at present rates” (Lowe and
Bernie, 2018, abstract).
 War Impacts

Warming causes extinction – global nuclear conflagration.

Michael Klare 20. The Nation’s defense correspondent, professor emeritus of peace and world-
security studies at Hampshire College, senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. “How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood of Nuclear War”. The
Nation. Jan 13 2020. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-defense-climate-
change/
President Donald Trump may not accept the scientific reality of climate change, but the nation’s senior military leaders recognize
that climate disruption is already underway, and they are planning extraordinary measures to prevent it from spiraling into nuclear
war. One particularly worrisome scenario is if extreme drought and abnormal monsoon rains
devastate agriculture and unleash social chaos in Pakistan, potentially creating an opening for
radical Islamists aligned with elements of the armed forces to seize some of the country’s 150 or so nuclear weapons.
To avert such a potentially cataclysmic development, the US Joint Special Operations Command has conducted
exercises for infiltrating Pakistan and locating the country’s nuclear munitions. Most of the necessary equipment for
such raids is already in position at US bases in the region, according to a 2011 report from the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.
“It’s safe to assume that planning for the worst-case scenario regarding Pakistan’s nukes has already taken place inside the US
government,” said Roger Cressey, a former deputy director for counterterrorism in Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s
administrations in 2011.

Such an attack by the United States would be an act of war and would entail enormous risks of escalation, especially since the
Pakistani military—the country’s most powerful institution—views the nation’s nuclear arsenal as its most prized possession and
would fiercely resist any US attempt to disable it. “These are assets which are the pride of Pakistan, assets which are…guarded by a
corps of 18,000 soldiers,” former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told NBC News in 2011. The Pakistani military “is not an army
which doesn’t know how to fight. This is an army that has fought three wars. Please understand that.”

A potential US military incursion in nuclear-armed Pakistan is just one example of a crucial but
little-discussed aspect of international politics in the early 21st century: how the acceleration of
climate change and nuclear war planning may make those threats to human survival harder to
defuse. At present, the intersections between climate change and nuclear war might not seem obvious. But powerful forces are
pushing both threats toward their most destructive outcomes.

In the case of climate change, the

unbridled emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is raising
global temperatures to unmistakably dangerous levels. Despite growing worldwide reliance on wind and solar
power for energy generation, the global demand for oil and natural gas continues to rise, and carbon emissions are projected to
remain on an upward trajectory for the foreseeable future. It
is highly unlikely, then, that the increase in average
global temperature can be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius , the aspirational goal adopted by the world’s
governments under the Paris Agreement in 2015, or even to 2°C, the actual goal. After that threshold is crossed,
scientists agree, it will prove almost impossible to avert catastrophic outcomes , such as the collapse
of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and a resulting sea level rise of 6 feet or more.

Climbing world temperatures and rising sea levels will diminish the supply of food and water in
many resource-deprived areas, increasing the risk of widespread starvation, social unrest, and human flight .
Global corn production, for example, is projected to fall by as much as 14 percent in a 2°C warmer world, according to research cited
in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Food
scarcity and crop failures
risk pushing hundreds of millions of people into overcrowded cities, where the likelihood of
pandemics, ethnic strife, and severe storm damage is bound to increase. All of this will impose
an immense burden on human institutions . Some states may collapse or break up into a collection of
warring chiefdoms—all fighting over sources of water and other vital resources.
A similar momentum is now evident in the emerging nuclear arms race, with all three major powers—China, Russia, and the United
States—rushing to deploy a host of new munitions. This dangerous process commenced a decade ago, when Russian and Chinese
leaders sought improvements to their nuclear arsenals and President Barack Obama, in order to secure Senate approval of the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010, agreed to initial funding for the modernization of all three legs of America’s strategic triad,
which encompasses submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and bombers. (New START, which mandated significant
reductions in US and Russian arsenals, will expire in February 2021 unless renewed by the two countries.) Although Obama initiated
the modernization of the nuclear triad, the Trump administration has sought funds to proceed with their full-scale production, at an
estimated initial installment of $500 billion over 10 years.

Even during the initial modernization program of the Obama era, Russian and Chinese leaders were sufficiently alarmed to hasten
their own nuclear acquisitions. Both countries were already in the process of modernizing their stockpiles—Russia to replace Cold
War–era systems that had become unreliable, China to provide its relatively small arsenal with enhanced capabilities. Trump’s
decision to acquire a whole new suite of ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and bombers has added momentum to these efforts.
And with all three major powers upgrading their arsenals , the other nuclear-weapon states—led by
India, Pakistan, and North Korea—have been expanding their stockpiles as well. Moreover, with Trump’s recent
decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, all major powers are developing missile
delivery systems for a regional nuclear war such as might erupt in Europe, South Asia, or the western Pacific.

All things being equal, risingtemperatures will increase the likelihood of nuclear war, largely because
climate change will heighten the risk of social stress, the decay of nation-states, and armed
violence in general, as I argue in my new book, All Hell Breaking Loose. As food and water supplies dwindle
and governments come under ever-increasing pressure to meet the vital needs of their populations, disputes
over critical resources are likely to become more heated and violent, whether the parties involved have
nuclear arms or not. But this danger is compounded by the possibility that several nuclear-armed powers
—notably India, Pakistan, and China—will break apart as a result of climate change and
accompanying battles over disputed supplies of water.

Together, these three countries are projected by the UN Population Division to number approximately 3.4 billion
people in 2050, or 34 percent of the world’s population. Yet they possess a much smaller share of the world’s
freshwater supplies, and climate change is destined to reduce what they have even further. Warmer
temperatures are also expected to diminish crop yields in these countries, adding to the desperation of farmers and very
likely resulting in widespread ethnic strife and population displacement . Under these circumstances,
climate-related internal turmoil would increase the risk of nuclear war in two ways: by enabling
the capture of nuclear arms by rogue elements of the military and their possible use against perceived enemies
and by inciting wars between these states over vital supplies of water and other critical
resources.
The risk to Pakistan from climate change is thought to be particularly acute. A large part of the population is still engaged in
agriculture, and much of the best land—along with access to water—is controlled by wealthy landowners (who also dominate
national politics). Water scarcity and mismanagement is a perennial challenge, and climate change is bound to make the problem
worse. Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis, a 2013 report by the National Research Council for the US
intelligence community, highlights the danger of chaos and conflict in that country as global warming advances. Pakistan, the report
notes, is expected to suffer from inadequate water supplies during the dry season and severe flooding during the monsoon—
outcomes that will devastate its agriculture and amplify the poverty and unrest already afflicting much of the country. “The Pakistan
case,” the report reads, “illustrates how a highly stressed environmental system on which a tense society depends can be a source of
political instability and how that source can intensify when climate events put increased stress on the system.” Thus, as global
temperatures rise and agriculture declines, Pakistan could shatter along ethnic, class, and religious lines, precisely the scenario that
might trigger the sort of intervention anticipated by the US Joint Special Operations Command.

Assuming that Pakistan remains intact, another great danger arising from increasing world temperatures is a conflict between it and
India or between China and India over access to shared river systems. Whatever their differences, Pakistan and western India
are forced by geography to share a single river system, the Indus , for much of their water requirements.
Likewise, western China and eastern India also share a river , the Brahmaputra, for their vital water needs. The
Indus and the Brahmaputra obtain much of their flow from periods of heavy precipitation; they also depend on
meltwater from Himalayan glaciers, and these are at risk of melting because of rising temperatures.
According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers could lose as much as 29 percent of their total mass by 2035 and 78 percent by 2100.
This would produce periodic flooding as the ice melts but would eventually result in long periods of negligible
flow, with calamitous consequences for downstream agriculture. The widespread starvation and chaos
that could result would prove daunting to all the governments involved and make any water-related disputes
between them a potential flash point for escalation.
As in Pakistan, water supply has always played a pivotal role in the social and economic life of China and India, with both countries
highly dependent on a few major river systems for civic and agricultural purposes. Excessive rainfall can lead to catastrophic
flooding, and prolonged drought has often led to widespread famine and mass starvation. In such a setting, water management has
always been a prime responsibility of government—and a failure to fulfill this function effectively has often resulted in civil unrest.
Climate change is bound to increase this danger by causing prolonged water shortages interspersed with severe flooding. This has
prompted leaders of both countries to build ever more dams on all key rivers.

India, as the upstream power on several tributaries of the Indus, and China, as the upstream power on the Brahmaputra, have
considered damming these rivers and diverting their waters for exclusive national use, thereby diminishing the flow to downstream
users. Three of the Indus’s principal tributaries, the Jhelum, Chenab, and Ravi rivers, flow through Indian-controlled Kashmir (now in
total lockdown, with government forces suppressing all public functions). It’s possible that India seeks full control of Kashmir in order
to dam the tributaries there and divert their waters from Pakistan—a move that could easily trigger a war if it occurs at a time of
severe food and water stress and one that would very likely invite the use of nuclear weapons, given Pakistan’s attitude toward
them.

The situation regarding the Brahmaputra could prove equally precarious. China has already installed one dam on the river, the
Zangmu Dam in Tibet, and has announced plans for several more. Some Chinese hydrologists have proposed the construction of
canals linking the Brahmaputra to more northerly rivers in China, allowing the diversion of its waters to drought-stricken areas of the
heavily populated northeast. These plans have yet to come to fruition, but as global warming increases water scarcity across
northern China, Beijing might proceed with the idea. “If China was determined to move forward with such a scheme,” the US
National Intelligence Council warned in 2009, “it could become a major element in pushing China and India towards an adversarial
rather than simply a competitive relationship.”

Severe water scarcity in northern China could prompt yet another move with nuclear implications: an
attempted annexation by China of largely uninhabited but water-rich areas of Russian Siberia. Thousands of Chinese
farmers and merchants have already taken up residence in eastern Siberia, and some commentators have spoken of a time when
climate change prompts a formal Chinese takeover of those areas— which
would almost certainly prompt fierce
Russian resistance and the possible use of nuclear weapons.

In the Arctic, global warming is producing a wholly different sort of peril: geopolitical competition and
conflict made possible by the melting of the polar ice cap . Before long, the Arctic ice cap is expected to
disappear in summertime and to shrink noticeably in the winter, making the region more attractive for resource
extraction. According to the US Geological Survey, an estimated 30 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered natural gas is
above the Arctic Circle; vast reserves of iron ore, uranium, and rare earth minerals are also thought to be buried there. These
resources, along with the appeal of faster commercial shipping routes linking Europe and Asia, have induced all the
major powers, including China, to establish or expand operations in the region. Russia has rehabilitated numerous
Arctic bases abandoned after the Cold War and built others; the United States has done likewise, modernizing its radar installation at
Thule in Greenland, reoccupying an airfield at Keflavík in Iceland, and establishing bases in northern Norway.

Increased economic
and military competition in the Arctic has significant nuclear implications, as
numerous weapons are deployed there and geography lends it a key role in many nuclear scenarios. Most of Russia’s
missile-carrying submarines are based near Murmansk, on the Barents Sea (an offshoot of the Arctic Ocean), and many of its
nuclear-armed bombers are also at bases in the region to take advantage of the short polar route to North America. As a
counterweight, the Pentagon has deployed additional subs and antisubmarine aircraft near the Barents Sea and interceptor aircraft
in Alaska, followed by further measures by Moscow. “I do not want to stoke any fears here,” Russian President Vladimir Putin
declared in June 2017, “but experts are aware that US nuclear submarines remain on duty in northern Norway…. We must protect
[Russia’s] shore accordingly.”
On the other side of the equation, an intensifying arms race will block progress against climate change by siphoning resources
needed for a global energy transition and by poisoning the relations among the great powers, impeding joint efforts to slow the
warming.

With the signing of the Paris Agreement, it appeared that the great powers might unite in a global effort to slash greenhouse gas
emissions quickly enough to avoid catastrophe, but those hopes have since receded. At the time, Obama emphasized that limiting
global warming would require nations to work together in an environment of trust and peaceful cooperation. Instead of leading the
global transition to a postcarbon energy system, however, the major powers are spending massively to enhance their military
capabilities and engaging in conflict-provoking behaviors.

Since fiscal year 2016, the annual budget of the US Department of Defense has risen from $580 billion to $738 billion in fiscal year
2020. When the budget increases for each fiscal year since 2016 are combined, the United States will have spent an additional $380
billion on military programs by the end of this fiscal year—more than enough to jump-start the transition to a carbon-free economy.
If the Pentagon budget rises as planned to $747 billion in fiscal year 2024, a total of $989 billion in additional spending will have
been devoted to military operations and procurement over this period, leaving precious little money for a Green New Deal or any
other scheme for systemic decarbonization.

Meanwhile, policy-makers in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow increasingly regard one another as implacable and dangerous
adversaries. “As China and Russia seek to expand their global influence,” then–Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats informed
Congress in a January 2019 report, “they are eroding once well-established security norms and increasing the risk of regional
conflicts.” Chinese and Russian officials have been making similar statements about the United States. Secondary powers like India,
Pakistan, and Turkey are also assuming increasingly militaristic postures, facilitating the potential spread of nuclear weapons and
exacerbating regional tensions. In this environment, it is almost impossible to imagine future climate negotiations at which the great
powers agree on concrete measures for a rapid transition to a clean energy economy.

In a world constantly poised for nuclear war while facing widespread state decay from climate
disruption, these twin threats would intermingle and intensify each other. Climate-related
resource stresses and disputes would increase the level of global discord and the risk of nuclear
escalation; the nuclear arms race would poison relations between states and make a global energy transition impossible.

Climate change will exacerbate geopolitical tensions and lead to widespread

wars
Busalacchi and Goodman 8/6 (Antonio Busalacchi - president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research and former co-chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on National Security Implications of Climate Change for
U.S. Naval Forces, Sherri Goodman - senior fellow at the Wilson Center and the Center for Climate & Security and former U.S. deputy
under secretary of defense (environmental security), 8-6-2021, Why National Security Agencies Must Analyze Climate Risks,
Lawfare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-national-security-agencies-must-analyze-climate-risks) *edited for ableist language*

July marked the initial deadline for the Pentagon and other federal agencies to draw up plans for
potential climate risks, under an executive order by President Biden. Such plans are an essential first step, but the
greater challenge for national security agencies is to continue to redirect their focus to changing
climate conditions that pose a complex, two-pronged threat: social and political instability
overseas and damage to U.S. infrastructure. Climate change is accelerating geopolitical
tensions in many regions of core strategic interest to the United States. Increasingly destructive storms, rising
seas and the melting Arctic are fueling global tensions, with nations bracing for mass migrations
of displaced people and vying to take advantage of newly accessible natural resources. Changing
climate patterns have become a catalyst for internal conflicts and international unrest , with
severe droughts playing a role in setting the stage for the Syrian civil war and shrinking lake levels in
Lake Chad contributing to widespread violence across the four African nations of the lake’s basin. Even in
places where climate change has not sparked conflicts directly, it looms as a threat multiplier,
exacerbating competition for food and water and worsening ethnic tensions . The Defense Department
highlighted these risks earlier this year in its first climate and environmental security tabletop exercise, known as Elliptic Thunder.
Set in East Africa and based on climate, economic and population forecasts, the multiagency exercise highlighted the extent to which
climate change can worsen natural disasters and trigger regional instability, opening the door
for strategic rivals and extremist groups to gain power. Closer to home, altered weather patterns and warming
temperatures are battering military installations across the nation . From the devastating impacts of Hurricane
Michael on Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida to the thawing and erosion in Alaska that is undermining the foundations of
vital radar facilities, climate change is costing billions of dollars while degrading U.S. military
readiness. More broadly, coastal surges, floods, heat waves and wildfires are exacting a toll on U.S.
transportation networks and energy systems, threatening supply disruptions and increasing the
cost and complexity of potential defense operations. As climate change becomes a central focus for national
security policymakers, scientists are gaining new insights into the complex interconnections of Earth’s climate system. By
collaborating with a range of stakeholders, they also are helping to develop actionable
projections of climate impacts in specific regions. In one notable breakthrough, for example, a research team
drew on the complex interactions of the ocean and atmosphere to demonstrate that changes in Arctic sea ice coverage can be
predicted several years in advance. This is critical for U.S. security interests at a time when changing ocean
circulation patterns and salinity are affecting how submarines maintain their stealthy features
and track Russian and other activity in the warming Arctic . Russia is taking advantage of a
warming climate to rearm in the Arctic, conducting high-profile military exercises in the region
earlier this year and launching increasingly powerful icebreakers while President Vladimir Putin
pledges to reinforce his nation’s presence in the region. Also looming are growing international tensions over
trillions of dollars of natural resources that are becom ing more accessible because of retreating
sea ice. Looking further into the future, scientists are studying how storms are likely to shift later this
century in ways that may lead to widespread flooding or lightning-induced wildfires in parts of North
America and overseas regions. This type of research is critical for designing more resilient infrastructure
and anticipating shifts in weather patterns that can displace vulnerable populations. To enhance
understanding of how the climate is likely to change and the extent to which reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
could lessen future impacts, the government must boost funding for science in ways that can
support decision-makers. The research and analysis community needs more powerful
supercomputers, next-generation observing tools such as advanced satellites and enhanced models of regional
climate conditions, along with improvements to such cutting-edge techniques as artificial intelligence.
Investments in climate research and analytics will more than pay for themselves by producing
increasingly detailed and reliable projections of the climate threats the U.S. faces at the regional scale at
which decisions are made and conflict arises. This will produce economic benefits as well, with private firms
already generating jobs that provide climate risk services to many sectors of the economy, from real estate to
banking.

Climate change outweighs all other impacts – it’s a threat multiplier and higher
probability

Torres, affiliate scholar @ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 7-22 -
16

(Phil, PhD candidate @ Rice University in tropical conservation biology, Op-ed: Climate Change Is
the Most Urgent Existential Risk, http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/Torres20160807)

Humanity faces a number of formidable challenges this century. Threats to our collective survival stem from
asteroids and comets, supervolcanoes, global pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear weapons,
biotechnology, synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and artificial superintelligence. With such threats in mind, an informal survey conducted by the Future of
Humanity Institute placed the probability of human extinction this century at 19%. To put this in perspective, it means that the average American is more than a thousand times
more likely to die in a human extinction event than a plane crash.* So, given limited resources, which risks should we prioritize? Many intellectual leaders, including Elon Musk,
Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates, have suggested that artificial superintelligence constitutes one of the most significant risks to humanity. And this may be correct in the long-

climate change and biodiveristy loss, should take priority right now over every
term. But I would argue that two other risks, namely

other known threat. Why? Because these ongoing catastrophes in slow-motion will frame our
existential predicament on Earth not just for the rest of this century, but for literally thousands of years to come. As such, they
have the capacity to raise or lower the probability of other risks scenarios unfolding. Multiplying Threats
Ask yourself the following: are wars more or less likely in a world marked by extreme weather events ,

megadroughts, food supply disruptions, and sea-level rise? Are terrorist attacks more or less likely in a
world beset by the collapse of global ecosystems, agricultural failures, economic uncertainty, and
political instability? Both government officials and scientists agree that the answer is “more likely.” For example, the current

Director of the CIA, John Brennan, recently identified “the impact of climate change” as one of the “deeper causes of

this rising instability” in countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Ukraine. Similarly, the former Secretary of Defense, Chuck
Hagel, has described climate change as a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are
dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism.” The Department of Defense has also affirmed a connection. In a 2015 report, it states, “Global climate

change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership
and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries.” Scientific studies have further shown a connection
between the environmental crisis and violent conflicts. For example, a 2015 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that climate change was a
causal factor behind the record-breaking 2007-2010 drought in Syria. This drought led to a mass migration of farmers into urban centers, which fueled the 2011 Syrian civil war.
Some observers, including myself, have suggested that this struggle could be the beginning of World War III, given the complex tangle of international involvement and
overlapping interests. The study’s conclusion is also significant because the Syrian civil war was the Petri dish in which the Islamic State consolidated its forces, later emerging as

climate change and biodiversity loss could very

the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in human history. A Perfect Storm The point is that

easily push societies to the brink of collapse. This will exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions
and introduce entirely new power struggles between state and nonstate actors. At the same time, advanced technologies will very likely
become increasingly powerful and accessible. As I’ve written elsewhere, the malicious agents of the future will have bulldozers rather than shovels to dig mass graves for their
enemies. The result is a perfect storm of more conflicts in the world along with unprecedentedly dangerous weapons. If the conversation were to end here, we’d have ample
reason for placing climate change and biodiversity loss at the top of our priority lists. But there are other reasons they ought to be considered urgent threats. I would argue that
they could make humanity more vulnerable to a catastrophe involving superintelligence and even asteroids. The basic reasoning is the same for both cases. Consider
superintelligence first. Programming a superintelligence whose values align with ours is a formidable task even in stable circumstances. As Nick Bostrom argues in his 2014 book,
we should recognize the “default outcome” of superintelligence to be “doom.” Now imagine trying to solve these problems amidst a rising tide of interstate wars, civil unrest,
terrorist attacks, and other tragedies? The societal stress caused by climate change and biodiversity loss will almost certainly compromise important conditions for creating
friendly AI, such as sufficient funding, academic programs to train new scientists, conferences on AI, peer-reviewed journal publications, and communication/collaboration
between experts of different fields, such as computer science and ethics. It could even make an “AI arms race” more likely, thereby raising the probability of a malevolent

superintelligence being created either on purpose or by mistake. Similarly, imagine that astronomers discover a behemoth asteroid barreling toward Earth.
Will designing, building, and launching a spacecraft to divert the assassin past our planet be easier or more difficult in a world preoccupied with other survival issues? In a

relatively peaceful world, one could imagine an asteroid actually bringing humanity together by
directing our attention toward a common threat. But if the “conflict multipliers” of climate
change and biodiversity loss have already catapulted civilization into chaos and turmoil, I strongly suspect that humanity
will become more, rather than less, susceptible to dangers of this sort. Context Risks We can describe the dual threats of climate change and
biodiversity loss as “context risks.” Neither is likely to directly cause the extinction of our species. But both will define the context in which

civilization confronts all the other threats before us. In this way, they could indirectly contribute to the
overall danger of annihilation — and this worrisome effect could be significant. For example, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the effects of climate change will be “severe,” “pervasive,” and “irreversible.” Or, as a 2016 study published in Nature and authored by over twenty scientists puts it, the
consequences of climate change “will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far.” Furthermore, a recent article in Science Advances confirms that

another study suggests that

humanity has already escorted the biosphere into the sixth mass extinction event in life’s 3.8 billion year history on Earth. Yet

we could be approaching a sudden, irreversible, catastrophic collapse of the global ecosystem. If this were to
occur, it could result in “widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life.” Given the potential for environmental

degradation to elevate the likelihood of nuclear wars, nuclear terrorism, engineered pandemics,
a superintelligence takeover , and perhaps even an impact winter, it ought to take precedence over all

other risk concerns — at least in the near-term. Let’s make sure we get our priorities straight.

It makes nuclear war inevitable in every region

Dr. Michael T. Klare 20, Five Colleges Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College, Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Institute, BA and MA from
Columbia University, Member of the Board of Director at the Arms Control Association, Defense
Correspondent for The Nation, “How Rising Temperatures Increase the Likelihood of Nuclear
War”, The Nation, 1/13/2020, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/nuclear-defense-
climate-change/

Climbing world temperatures and rising sea levels will diminish the supply of food and water in many
resource-deprived areas, increasing the risk of widespread starvation, social unrest, and
human flight. Global corn production, for example, is projected to fall by as much as 14 percent in a 2°C
warmer world, according to research cited in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Food scarcity and crop failures risk pushing hundreds of millions of people into overcrowded
cities, where the likelihood of pandemics, ethnic strife, and severe storm damage is bound to
increase. All of this will impose an immense burden on human institutions . Some states may
collapse or break up into a collection of warring chiefdoms—all fighting over sources of water and
other vital resources.

A similar momentum is now evident in the emerging nuclear arms race, with all three major powers—
China, Russia, and the United States—rushing to deploy a host of new munitions. This dangerous process
commenced a decade ago, when Russian and Chinese leaders sought improvements to their nuclear arsenals and President Barack
Obama, in order to secure Senate approval of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010, agreed to initial funding for the
modernization of all three legs of America’s strategic triad, which encompasses submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and
bombers. (New START, which mandated significant reductions in US and Russian arsenals, will expire in February 2021 unless
renewed by the two countries.) Although Obama initiated the modernization of the nuclear triad, the Trump administration has
sought funds to proceed with their full-scale production, at an estimated initial installment of $500 billion over 10 years.

Even during the initial modernization program of the Obama era, Russian and Chinese leaders were sufficiently alarmed to hasten
their own nuclear acquisitions. Both countries were already in the process of modernizing their stockpiles—Russia to replace Cold
War–era systems that had become unreliable, China to provide its relatively small arsenal with enhanced capabilities. Trump’s
decision to acquire a whole new suite of ICBMs, nuclear-armed submarines, and bombers has added momentum to these efforts.
And with all three major powers upgrading their arsenals, the other nuclear-weapon states—led by India, Pakistan, and North Korea
—have been expanding their stockpiles as well. Moreover, with Trump’s recent decision to abandon the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, all major powers are developing missile delivery systems for a regional nuclear war such as might
erupt in Europe, South Asia, or the western Pacific.

Global warming causes extinction – it’s a conflict multiplier that escalates every
regional hotspot and makes the earth uninhabitable – that’s Torres
Causes extinction--no adaptation
Keith Dear et al. 10, Duke research professor, Global Health and Environmental Health, 5-25-
2010, “Climate change: Heat, health, and longer horizons,” PNAS, 107.21,
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9483.full#corresp-1
Within the more usual time horizon, spanning only decades of climate change, there has been
discussion about the possibilities of physiological acclimatization in response to future increased
exposures to extreme heat (6). Further, that discussion has often been predicated on the likely future increases in climatic and weather
variability that are anticipated to accompany climate change. Sherwood and Huber (1), however, focus particularly on

the prospect and consequence of substantial changes in mean temperature conditions over
several centuries along with accompanying changes in the distribution of maximum
temperatures. Even if variability changes little, a higher mean temperature implies more
frequent exceeding of physiologically tolerable thermal limits. For mean temperature
increases of 4–6 °C or more, it is implausible that human biology, as currently constituted,
could adapt physiologically. It is instructive, therefore, that the authors (1) remind us of the
time frame of biological evolutionary processes. As they point out, the fossil record shows that
the evolutionary changes evoked by the slow fluctuating processes of global cooling over the
past 65 million years have typically yielded increases in warm-blooded mammalian body size,
thereby reducing heat dissipation to the external environment. Thus, we human mammals
cannot expect to undergo any useful heritable biological adaptation during the evolutionary
nanosecond of just the next several centuries. The genus Homo has a particularly high rate of biological evolution, in part
because of behavioral drive (7), and this is well-illustrated by the emergence and spread of the lactase allele within the last 10,000 years in response to
the novel inclusion of dairy foods in the human diet (8). Indeed, the rate of genetic evolution in humans has been extraordinarily rapid over this time
(9). Admittedly, we are in unknown territory here, given that the unprecedented size of today's human population has grown from millions to billions
within the historical, not the geological, past. A larger
gene pool allows more rapid response to environmental
changes, as does an increase in interbreeding between regional genetic strains. Furthermore, “a
population that suddenly increases in size has the potential for rapid adaptive change” (9). Even
so, biological evolutionary adaptation to a warmer climate would seem likely to require scores
or even hundreds of generations, not just several hundred of years. Also, the authors (1) note
that a much hotter world would not only be less tolerable and less livable but would be a world
wherein economic productivity would fall, both because of the disrupted production processes
in nature (agriculture, forests, and fisheries) on which we depend and the impaired work
capacity under overheated conditions (10). There has been negligible recognition of this latter
category of impact in the climate-change science literature. Indeed, major international
bodies such as the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program have yet to
adequately acknowledge this basic consequence of climate change and impaired work
capacity, and they do not include it in their projections and plans for social and economic
development.
 Heat Waves

An increase in the earth’s average temperature is triggering heat waves that kill
and undermine the economy. Larger temperature increases trigger hunger,
disease, and migration.

Washington Post Editorial Board, July 16, 2022, The global heat waves should be a warning for
the future, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/16/global-heat-waves-climate-
change-warning/

In Yosemite National Park’s famed Mariposa Grove, giant sequoias have grown for millennia. As
some of the largest and oldest living things in the world, their preservation — which was first
given legal protection under Abraham Lincoln — predates the National Park Service. This month,
they were threatened by a nearby wildfire that was exacerbated by dry, hot conditions. That is
just one of many dramatic weather events taking place around the country and world. In Texas,
record-breaking temperatures forced the state’s power grid operator to warn residents to cut
back on energy use or face the risk of blackouts. Around 35 million Americans were placed
under heat advisories or excessive heat warnings. Western Europe is also experiencing extreme
heat waves — Spain is experiencing its second in less than a month, while the United Kingdom
issued its first-ever “extreme heat” warning. Italy has faced prolonged heat and drought, and a
glacier collapse officials attributed to climate change resulted in the deaths of 11 people earlier
this month. In China, at least 86 cities released heat alerts; in the city of Nanjing, officials opened
air-raid shelters for locals to escape the heat. These cases should not be viewed in isolation.
While links between individual weather events and global warming cannot be determined
immediately, studies have found that concurrent heat waves affecting parts of North America,
Europe and Asia have become more intense and frequent over the past few decades. An
analysis by World Weather Attribution, a group of scientists who analyze whether extreme
events are connected to climate change, found that last year’s devastating heat wave in the
Pacific Northwest was “virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.” Such
patterns have disastrous, far-reaching effects. Heat waves pose a particular threat to global food
supplies, already under pressure from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. They are linked with a range
of health problems and correlate with higher rates of crime, anxiety and depression. A 2021
analysis from the Atlantic Council estimated that the drop in worker productivity due to extreme
heat costs the U.S. economy $100 billion annually — a figure that could double by 2030 . As
President Biden and congressional Democrats struggle to find enough support for their climate
agenda, the ongoing heat waves offer a small window into what the future could look like if
global warming continues unabated. Even if we keep the global temperature rise under 1.5
degrees Celsius — the threshold scientists believe should not be exceeded — the number of
extreme weather events a person will experience would nearly quadruple, according to the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A greater rise in temperature
would be even more calamitous, with unthinkable consequences for global hunger, disease,
migration, productivity and standards of living. Slashing greenhouse gas emissions and
transitioning to a greener economy at the scale and pace needed would require creativity,
innovation and political courage. But the cost if we fail is far more daunting: a future in which
climate disasters, and all the damage and instability that come with them, become the new
normal everywhere.
 Warming Increasing

58% increases in GHG emissions now

Gallagher, January-February 2022, KELLY SIMS GALLAGHER is Academic Dean, Professor of

Energy and Environmental Policy, and Director of the Climate Policy Lab at Tuft University’s
Fletcher School. She served as Senior Policy Adviser in the White House’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy during the Obama administration, The Coming Carbon Tsunami, Developing
Countries Need a New Growth Model—Before It’s Too Late,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/coming-carbon-tsunami

Despite the implementation of four major climate agreements and increasingly dire warnings
from scientists, greenhouse gas emissions from all sources increased by 58 percent between
1990 and 2020. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increased by 18
percent during the same period (since some emissions are absorbed by oceans and forests).
 Cognitive Bias

Err neg because of cognitive biases.

Wallace-Wells 19 [David Wallace-Wells is a journalist with New York Magazine, “Time to
Panic”, 2/16/19, New York Magazine,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-
warming.html]

How can we be this deluded? One answer comes from behavioral economics . The scroll of
cognitive biases identified by psychologists and fellow travelers over the past half-century can seem, like a social media
feed, bottomless, and they distort and distend our perception of a changing climate . These
optimistic prejudices, prophylactic biases and emotional reflexes form an entire library of climate
delusion. We build our view of the universe outward from our own experience , a reflexive
tendency that surely shapes our ability to comprehend genuinely existential threats to the
species. We have a tendency to wait for others to act, rather than acting ourselves; a preference
for the present situation; a disinclination to change things; and an excess of confidence that we
can change things easily, should we need to, no matter the scale. We can’t see anything but through cataracts of self-
deception. The sum total of these biases is what makes climate change something the ecological
theorist Timothy Morton calls a “hyperobject” — a conceptual fact so large and complex that it can
never be properly comprehended. In his book “Worst-Case Scenarios,” the legal scholar Cass Sunstein wrote that in
general, we have a problem considering unlikely but potential risks, which we run from either into complacency or paranoia. His
solution is a wonky one: We should all be more rigorous in our cost-benefit analysis. That climate change
demands expertise, and faith in it, at precisely the moment when public confidence in expertise is collapsing is one of its many
paradoxes. That
climate change touches so many of our cognitive biases is a mark of just how big it
is and how much about human life it touches , which is to say, nearly everything.
 Destroys the Economy

It quickly turns the economy

Dr. Nouriel Roubini 20, Professor of Economics at New York University's Stern School of
Business, Chairman of Roubini Macro Associates, Senior Economist for International Affairs in
the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration, “The White
Swans of 2020”, Project Syndicate, 2/17/2020,
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/white-swan-risks-2020-by-nouriel-roubini-
2020-02
The US, of course, will not sit idly by while coming under asymmetric attack. It has already been increasing the pressure on these
countries with sanctions and other forms of trade and financial warfare, not to mention its own world-beating cyberwarfare
capabilities. US cyberattacks against the four rivals will continue to intensify this year, raising the risk of the first-ever cyber world
war and massive economic, financial, and political disorder.

Looking beyond the risk of severe geopolitical escalations in 2020, there

are additional medium-term risks
associated with climate change, which could trigger costly environmental disasters. Climate
change is not just a lumbering giant that will cause economic and financial havoc decades from
now. It is a threat in the here and now, as demonstrated by the growing frequency and severity
of extreme weather events.

In addition to climate change, there

is evidence that separate, deeper seismic events are underway,
leading to rapid global movements in magnetic polarity and accelerating ocean currents.. Any
one of these developments could augur an environmental white swan event, as could climatic
“tipping points” such as the collapse of major ice sheets in Antarctica or Greenland in the next
few years. We already know that underwater volcanic activity is increasing; what if that trend translates into rapid marine
acidification and the depletion of global fish stocks upon which billions of people rely?

Climate change will wreck economies: 10-25% loss of GDP

Gallagher, January-February 2022, KELLY SIMS GALLAGHER is Academic Dean, Professor of

Energy and Environmental Policy, and Director of the Climate Policy Lab at Tuft University’s
Fletcher School. She served as Senior Policy Adviser in the White House’s Office of Science and
Technology Policy during the Obama administration, The Coming Carbon Tsunami, Developing
Countries Need a New Growth Model—Before It’s Too Late,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/coming-carbon-tsunami

These developing countries are also more vulnerable to extreme weather events caused by
climate change. If the world doesn’t begin rapidly reducing emissions, their growth will be
hobbled by increasingly frequent hurricanes, mudslides, floods, and droughts. One analysis,
sponsored by a global network of central banks, found that most countries could experience a
10–25 percent loss of GDP if no additional steps are taken to mitigate climate change. The
greatest GDP losses are projected to occur in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, but China and
the United States could still suffer substantial losses of up to ten percent of GDP. According to
a UN report published earlier this year, it is estimated that the cost of adapting to climate
change in developing countries will rise from $70 billion today to up to $500 billion by 2050.
 Time-Frame

It’s fast---extinction within 5 years

Dr. Jim Garrison 21, PhD from the University of Cambridge, MA from Harvard University, BA
from the University of Santa Clara, Founder/President of Ubiquity University, “Human Extinction
by 2026? Scientists Speak Out”, UbiVerse, 7/1/2021, https://ubiverse.org/posts/human-
extinction-by-2026-scientists-speak-out

This may be the most important article you will ever read, from Arctic News June 13, 2021. It is a
presentation of current climate data around planet earth with the assertion that if present
trends continue, rising temperatures and CO2 emissions could make human life impossible by
2026. That's how bad our situation is. We are not talking about what might happen over the
next decades. We are talking about what is happening NOW. We are entering a time of
escalating turbulence due to our governments' refusal to take any kind of real action to reduce
global warming. We must immediately and with every ounce of awareness and strength that we
can muster take concerted action to REGENERATE human community and the planetary ecology.
We must all become REGENERATION FIRST RESPONDERS, which is the focus of our Masters in
Regenerative Action.
 Climate Change Not Reversible
Prioritize climate change because the impacts are irreversible.
Paul R. Pillar 16, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown
University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution. 11-25-
2016, "Climate Change and the Priority of the Irreversible," National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/climate-change-the-priority-the-irreversible-18510?
page=show
Here is a suggestion, for those who really want to make a positive contribution to the common
interest, on how to prioritize issues on which there is well-founded worry about the damage
that the Trump administration may cause. Besides thinking very carefully, from a broad frame of
reference, about what is intrinsically most important, think about where that damage is most
likely to be irreversible, or at least where it cannot be reversed without much more difficulty
and uncertainty than other types of damage can be. Many issues, although they are important
and although bad policy on them can inflict much pain, are quite reversible. This is true of many topics in
fiscal and economic policy. Even if, for example, financial deregulation hastens the coming of another financial crisis and another Great Recession, this
will cause a lot of economic pain to the people but the nation will recover, as it recovered from the first Great Recession. With
many
domestic policies, generally more so than with foreign policy, the self-corrective mechanism of
disenchanted voters deciding to cast their votes in a different direction comes into play . This likely will
be the case with many who supported Trump this year coming to see that his policies provide no improvement to the economic situations that
underlay their discontent. Higher in priority are matters involving the integrity and validity of the democratic process through which all other policies
are made. Here the element of irreversibility, or of difficulty in reversing, involves an entrenched ruling minority using techniques to stay entrenched,
well after it has lost whatever majority it once may have had. This topic includes voter suppression laws, in which a party in power impedes the exercise
of the right to vote in ways that disproportionately disadvantage supporters of the other party. It also includes gerrymandering of legislative and
Congressional districts, which is why a recent decision by a federal district court involving a case in Wisconsin, which has confronted this problem
directly, is so important. It is reasonable to view such techniques as potentially a step toward authoritarianism. Most of the action on this topic,
however, is to be found in the state legislatures and the courts, and is not necessarily a product of a president’s policies. The
highest
priority, given the criterion of irreversibility of presidentially-inflicted harm, should go to the
issue of climate change and the need to arrest global warming. The intrinsic importance of the subject ought to
be beyond question: using a broad frame of reference, it would be hard to think of anything more vital for us

humans than keeping the planet habitable for humans. The difficulty in reversing any damage from presidential policies
has two elements, one of which involves international politics and the fragility of international cooperation. With the Paris climate accord and
understandings reached between the United States and China, the last few years have seen a welcome momentum in the right direction. If
the
United States, one of the two largest greenhouse gas emitters, were to lurch away from the
international consensus in the next four years, the momentum would be hard to recover. Even
more genuinely irreversible are some of the geophysical processes involved. One of the most
disturbing aspects of global warming is that it involves self-reinforcing feedback loops that
would make it extremely hard if not impossible to reverse the warming trend—at least on any
time scale that has meaning as far as the history of the human species is concerned—once the
trend passes certain tipping points. This means even a human race universally committed
several years or decades from now to saving the planet would be unable to accomplish some
things toward that end that humans of today could accomplish . In short, the next several years
matter a lot, and if they are not used well, irreversibility becomes more of a problem . An
example of such a feedback loop involves sea ice in the Arctic. The warmer it gets in the Arctic,
the less ice there is. And the less ice there is, the less sunlight is reflected off the surface, the
more heat is absorbed, and the more global warming accelerates further. The extent of Arctic
sea ice right now, which is at an off-the-charts low for this time of year, ought to be ringing
alarm bells. Another feedback loop involves land areas in the Arctic. Thawing of long-frozen
tundra and organic material within it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas that
exacerbates the global warming. Climate change deniers ought to be treated with all the disdain they richly deserve. Going against
the overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject ought to be given as much respect as belief that the Earth is flat. Those who place short-term
financial or political interests ahead of the fate of the planet should be condemned for their indefensibly selfish and short-sighted posture
 Risk Assessments

It outweighs other risks by a trillion times.

Ng ’19 [Yew-Kwang; May 2019; Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technology University,
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of the Advisory Board at the
Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. in Economics from Sydney University;
Global Policy, “Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective
Altruism,” vol. 10, no. 2, p. 258-266]

Catastrophic climate change

Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non‐
linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical thresholds and
tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev et al., 2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012;
IPCC 2014; Kareiva and Carranza, 2018; Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman, 2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016;
Van Aalst, 2006).7

A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could
cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p. 399). There are many avenues for positive feedback in
global warming, including:

 the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the reflection and
increases the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;
 the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more carbon; and
 higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the ocean floor,
producing runaway global warming.
Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall net positive feedback (Roe and
Baker, 2007). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p. 25) concludes, ‘The
world is currently completely
unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’.

The threat of sea‐level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely and
more imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For example, Sherwood and Huber
(2010) emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high environmental
wet‐bulb temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could … expose large fractions of
the [world] population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming,
‘the area of land rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p.
9555, making extinction much more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated
assessment models unreliably low.
While imminent extinction is very unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main point is that
we cannot rule it out. Annan and Hargreaves (2011, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper 95 per cent probability
limit for S [temperature increase] … to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C’. However, probabilities of 5 per cent,
0.5 per cent, 0.05 per cent or even 0.005 per cent of excessive warming and the resulting extinction
probabilities cannot be ruled out and are unacceptable. Even if there is only a 1 per cent
probability that there is a time bomb in the airplane, you probably want to change your flight.
Extinction of the whole world is more important to avoid by literally a trillion times.
 Outweighs Nuclear War

Comparatively, nuclear war wouldn’t be as bad as warming

Socol 11 (Yehoshua (Ph.D.), an inter-disciplinary physicist, is an expert in electro-optics, high-
energy physics and applications, and material science and Moshe Yanovskiy, Jan 2, “Nuclear
Proliferation and Democracy”,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/nuclear_proliferation_and_demo.html, CMR)

Nuclear proliferation should no longer be treated as an unthinkable nightmare; it is likely to be

the future reality. Nuclear weapons have been acquired not only by an extremely poor per
capita but large country such as India, but also by even poorer and medium-sized nations such
as Pakistan and North Korea. One could also mention South Africa, which successfully acquired a
nuclear arsenal despite economic sanctions (the likes of which have not yet been imposed on
Iran). It is widely believed that sanctions and rhetoric will not prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons and that many countries, in the Middle East and beyond, will act accordingly
(see, e.g., recent Heritage report). Nuclear Warfare -- Myths And Facts The direct consequences
of the limited use of nuclear weapons -- especially low-yield devices most likely to be in the
hands of non-state actors or irresponsible governments -- would probably not be great enough
to bring about significant geopolitical upheavals. Casualties from a single 20-KT nuclear device
are estimated [1] at about 25,000 fatalities with a similar number of injured, assuming a rather
unfortunate scenario (the center of a large city, with minimal warning). Scaling the above toll to
larger devices or to a larger number of devices is less than linear. For example, it has been
estimated that it would take as many as eighty devices of 20-KT yield each to cause 300,000
civilian fatalities in German cities (a result actually achieved by Allied area attacks, or carpet-
bombings, during the Second World War). A single 1-MT device used against Detroit has been
estimated by U.S. Congress OTA to result in about 220,000 fatalities. It is anticipated that well-
prepared civil defense measures, based on rather simple presently known techniques, would
decrease these numbers by maybe an order of magnitude (as will be discussed later). There is
little doubt that a nation determined to survive and with a strong sense of its own destiny would
not succumb to such losses. It is often argued that the fallout effects of even the limited use of
nuclear weapons would be worldwide and would last for generations. This is an exaggeration.
The following facts speak for themselves. -- In Japan, as assessed by REFR, less than 1,000 excess
cancer cases (i.e., above the natural occurrence) were recorded in over 100,000 survivors over
the past sixty years -- compared with about 110,000 immediate fatalities in the two atomic
bombings. No clinical or even sub-clinical effects were discovered in the survivors' offspring. -- In
the Chernobyl area, as assessed by IAEA, only fifteen cancer deaths can be directly attributed to
fallout radiation. No radiation-related increase in congenital formations was recorded. Nuclear
Conflict -- Possible Scenarios With reference to a possible regional nuclear conflict between a
rogue state and a democratic one, the no-winner (mutual assured destruction) scenario is
probably false. An analysis by Anthony Cordesman, et al. regarding a possible Israel-Iran nuclear
conflict estimated that while Israel might survive an Iranian nuclear blow, Iran would certainly
not survive as an organized society. Even though the projected casualties cited in that study
seem to us overstated, especially as regards Israel, the conclusion rings true. Due to the extreme
high intensity ("above-conventional") of nuclear conflict, it is nearly certain that such a war, no
matter its outcome, would not last for years, as we have become accustomed to in current low-
intensity conflicts. Rather, we should anticipate a new geo-political reality: the emergence of
clear winners and losers within several days, or at most weeks after the initial outbreak of
hostilities. This latter reality will most probably contain fewer nuclear-possessing states than the
former.

No nuke winter – studies

*A2 Robock & Toon

Seitz 2011 (Russell, Harvard University Center for International Affairs visiting scholar,
“Nuclear winter was and is debatable,” Nature, 7-7-11, Vol 475, pg37, accessed 9-27-11, CMR)

Alan Robock's contention that there has been no real scientific debate about the 'nuclear
winter' concept is itself debatable (Nature 473, 275–276; 2011). This potential climate disaster,
popularized in Science in 1983, rested on the output of a one-dimensional model that was later
shown to overestimate the smoke a nuclear holocaust might engender. More refined estimates,
combined with advanced three-dimensional models (see
http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/kss8te), have dramatically reduced the extent and
severity of the projected cooling. Despite this, Carl Sagan, who co-authored the 1983 Science
paper, went so far as to posit “the extinction of Homo sapiens” (C. Sagan Foreign Affairs 63, 75–
77; 1984). Some regarded this apocalyptic prediction as an exercise in mythology. George
Rathjens of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology protested: “Nuclear winter is the worst
example of the misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory,” (see
http://go.nature.com.libproxy.utdallas.edu/yujz84) and climatologist Kerry Emanuel observed
that the subject had “become notorious for its lack of scientific integrity” (Nature 319, 259;
1986). Robock's single-digit fall in temperature is at odds with the subzero (about −25 °C)
continental cooling originally projected for a wide spectrum of nuclear wars. Whereas Sagan
predicted darkness at noon from a US–Soviet nuclear conflict, Robock projects global sunlight
that is several orders of magnitude brighter for a Pakistan–India conflict — literally the
difference between night and day. Since 1983, the projected worst-case cooling has fallen from
a Siberian deep freeze spanning 11,000 degree-days Celsius (a measure of the severity of
winters) to numbers so unseasonably small as to call the very term 'nuclear winter' into
question.

Counterforce targeting checks

Mueller 9 (John, Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and Professor of Political
Science at Ohio State University. “Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-
Qaeda” p. 8)

To begin to approach a condition that can credibly justify applying such extreme
characterizations as societal annihilation, a full-out attack with hundreds, probably thousands,
of thermonuclear bombs would be required. Even in such extreme cases, the area actually
devastated by the bombs' blast and thermal pulse effects would be limited: 2,000 I-MT
explosions with a destructive radius of 5 miles each would directly demolish less than 5 percent
of the territory of the United States, for example. Obviously, if major population centers were
targeted, this sort of attack could inflict massive casualties. Back in cold war days, when such
devastating events sometimes seemed uncomfortably likely, a number of studies were
conducted to estimate the consequences of massive thermonuclear attacks. One of the most
prominent of these considered several possibilities. The most likely scenario--one that could be
perhaps be considered at least to begin to approach the rational-was a "counterforce" strike in
which well over 1,000 thermo nuclear weapons would be targeted at America's ballistic missile
silos, strategic airfields, and nuclear submarine bases in an effort to destroy the country's
strategic ability to retaliate. Since the attack would not directly target population centers, most
of the ensuing deaths would be from radioactive fallout, and the study estimates that from 2 to
20 million, depending mostly on wind, weather, and sheltering, would perish during the first
month.
 AT: Can’t Reverse Warming

We can still reverse the worst impacts of global warming.

Chrobak, 21 [Ula Chrobak, environmental contributor at PopularScience, 26
April 2021, PopularScience, “We can avoid the worst effects of climate change,
but we’re still in for a fight,” https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/reverse-
climate-threshold/, accessed 8-10-21]JMK

It’s easy to get disheartened about climate change. To keep global warming within the safe
threshold of 1.5ºC adopted by the Paris Agreement, we need to have declines in carbon
emissions on par with those of 2020, a year in which a global pandemic forced transportation
and industry to slow down. As economies rev back up, it’s understandable to be anxious that
things will return back to “normal,” a planet-wrecking status quo.

But even if the odds of global leaders shifting gears to focus on mitigating climate change are
low, it’s not cause for climate doomerism. Every bit of warming we ward off helps. A
new review in the journal Nature illustrates that even if we overshoot a global warming
threshold, it won’t necessarily destabilize crucial Earth systems—including ice sheets, ocean
currents, and tropical forests—right away. “If you change [the course of emissions] fast enough,
you can avoid certain consequences that might be otherwise irreversible,” says Valerio Lucarini,
a physicist at the University of Reading who was not involved in the study. “I think the paper
does a good job in making this clear.”

Global warming targets like 1.5ºC are based on what researchers think is needed to avoid setting
off powerful and irreversible changes to the biosphere that could devastate humans and
ecosystems. But Paul Ritchie, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter who led the study,
says that a common misconception is that once we cross a climate threshold, all is lost—that
processes like ice melt will spin out of control until the Earth equilibrates at a new, hotter
normal. “You often hear that we are very close to the threshold now [for ice sheet collapse]—
some say we’ve already crossed it—and that means, apparently, that we’re committed to
suffering a large [amount of] ice melt,” he says. “That’s not necessarily the case.”

Carefully sip a hot coffee and you won’t burn your tongue. Hold a big gulp in your mouth and
everything will taste funny for the rest of the day. Similarly, ice sheets and ocean currents can
take extra heat for a while. But if we keep temperatures over their threshold for too long, that’s
when we’ll actually get irreversible climate impacts.

To illustrate this concept, Ritchie developed a mathematical model to test climate overshoot
scenarios for various systems. In the recent paper, he tested this model on four key climate
tipping points: ice cap melting, Amazon forest dieback, disrupted Indian summer monsoons, and
the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major ocean
circulation system that redistributes heat from equatorial waters.
Each of these processes has a unique thermal threshold, at which a tipping point could be set
off. A tipping point is when a system moves from one stable state into a new one. It can be hard
to go back once this happens. Imagine two valleys separated by a mountain. At a certain
temperature, a system like the Amazon rainforest gets pushed to its limit, rolling into the
metaphorical next valley over and becoming a new type of ecosystem. Once there, it will be
nearly impossible to return the now-treeless landscape back to its former lush state.

But this new paper shows that a threshold can be tripped without a system immediately shifting
into a new state. How much it can handle is based on its individual sensitivity to warmer
temperatures, how fast we can cool the planet back down, and at what point global warming
eventually stabilizes. The rate at which we cross a threshold temperature also matters—the
slower we go, the more likely we are to avoid setting off a tipping point.

Some tipping points are slow to manifest, while others might occur on a much shorter timescale.
Ritchie and his team found that we have multiple centuries during which to stabilize global
temperatures at 1.5ºC before the ice caps melt and the AMOC collapses . But tropical forests and
monsoons don’t have as much time. Especially if we overshoot a lot (such as by bringing on
temperatures of about 4ºC or more above pre industrial times), Amazon rainforests might only
have a few years before they start dying at large scale, and Indian summer monsoons just a few
decades before they are disrupted. If we cross the Paris Agreement target, just how much the
planet is permanently altered depends on how fast we can cool the atmosphere back down.

Anthropogenic warming causes extinction --- mitigation efforts now are

key
Griffin, 2015 (David, Professor of Philosophy at Claremont, “The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?”,
CNN, 4/14/2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/ )

Although most of us worry about other things, climate

scientists have become increasingly worried
about the survival of civilization. For example, Lonnie Thompson, who received the U.S. National Medal of
Science in 2010, said that virtually all climatologists "are now convinced that global warming
poses a clear and present danger to civilization." Informed journalists share this concern. The
climate crisis "threatens the survival of our civilization," said Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross
Gelbspan. Mark Hertsgaard agrees, saying that the continuation of global warming
"would create planetary conditions all but certain to end civilization as we know it."
These scientists and journalists, moreover, are worried not only about the distant future but about the condition of the planet
for their own children and grandchildren. James Hansen, often considered the world's leading climate scientist, entitled his
book "Storms of My Grandchildren." The
threat to civilization comes primarily from the increase of
the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere , due largely to the burning of fossil fuels. Before the
rise of the industrial age, CO2 constituted only 275 ppm (parts per million) of the atmosphere. But it is now above 400 and
rising about 2.5 ppm per year. Because
of the CO2 increase, the planet's average temperature has
increased 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Although this increase may not
seem much, it has already brought about serious changes. The idea that we will be safe from "dangerous
climate change" if we do not exceed a temperature rise of 2C (3.6F) has been widely accepted. But many informed people have
rejected this assumption. In the opinion of journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben, "the one degree we've raised the
temperature already has melted the Arctic, so we're fools to find out what two will do." His warning is supported by James
Hansen, who declared that "a target of two degrees (Celsius) is actually a prescription for long-term disaster." The
burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has made the planet warmer than it had been since the
rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. Civilization was made possible by the emergence about
12,000 years ago of the "Holocene" epoch, which turned out to be the Goldilocks zone - not
too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, "We are catapulting ourselves way out of the
Holocene." This catapult is dangerous, because we have no evidence civilization can long
survive with significantly higher temperatures . And yet, the world is on a trajectory that would lead to
an increase of 4C (7F) in this century. In the opinion of many scientists and the World Bank, this could happen as early as the
2060s. What would "a 4C world" be like? According to Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research (at the University of East Anglia), "during New York's summer
heat waves the warmest days would be around 10-12C (18-21.6F) hotter [than today's]."
Moreover, he has said, above an increase of 4C only about 10% of the human population
will survive. Believe it or not, some scientists consider Anderson overly optimistic . The main
reason for pessimism is the fear that the planet's temperature may be close to a tipping
point that would initiate a "low-end runaway greenhouse," involving "out-of-control
amplifying feedbacks." This condition would result, says Hansen, if all fossil fuels are burned (which is the intention
of all fossil-fuel corporations and many governments). This result "would make most of the planet
uninhabitable by humans." Moreover, many scientists believe that runaway global
warming could occur much more quickly, because the rising temperature caused by CO2
could release massive amounts of methane (CH4), which is, during its first 20 years, 86
times more powerful than CO2. Warmer weather induces this release from carbon that has been stored in methane
hydrates, in which enormous amounts of carbon -- four times as much as that emitted from fossil fuels since 1850 -- has been
frozen in the Arctic's permafrost. And yet now the Arctic's temperature is warmer than it had been for 120,000 years -- in
other words, more than 10 times longer than civilization has existed. According to Joe Romm, a physicist who created the
Climate Progress website, methane release from thawing permafrost in the Arctic "is the most dangerous amplifying feedback
in the entire carbon cycle." The amplifying feedback works like this: The warmer temperature releases millions of tons of
methane, which then further raise the temperature, which in turn releases more methane. The
resulting threat of
runaway global warming may not be merely theoretical. Scientists have long been
convinced that methane was central to the fastest period of global warming in geological
history, which occurred 55 million years ago. Now a group of scientists have accumulated
evidence that methane was also central to the greatest extinction of life thus far: the end-
Permian extinction about 252 million years ago. Worse yet, whereas it was previously thought that
significant amounts of permafrost would not melt, releasing its methane, until the planet's temperature has risen several
degrees Celsius, recent studies indicate that a rise of 1.5 degrees would be enough to start the melting. What
can be
done then? Given the failure of political leaders to deal with the CO2 problem, it is now too
late to prevent terrible developments. But it may -- just may -- be possible to keep global
warming from bringing about the destruction of civilization. To have a chance, we
must, as Hansen says, do everything possible to "keep climate close to the Holocene
range" -- which means, mobilize the whole world to replace dirty energy with clean as
soon as possible.

And, Climate change

 AT: Adaptation
Adaptation is impossible
Powell Hutton 16, Powell Hutton served for 30 years in the US Army, after which he worked in
the public and private sectors, including doing research and analysis for the Departments of
Defense and Energy, 1-17-2016, "Can we cool the earth through geoengineering?," Center for
Climate Protection, https://climateprotection.org/can-cool-earth-geoengineering/
And of course, such options are not available to non-agricultural plant life. Ecologists stress that the rate of warming is more important than

the amount of warming. Animals can migrate, and given enough time, plants can adapt. In fact, they
have and they are. Around the globe, species are on the move , climbing in elevation about 36 feet and moving poleward
about 10 kilometers per decade to escape the heat and stay within their niches. Whole ecosystems , however, cannot. The birds that

migrate to the Arctic tundra in the spring have evolved their timing to synchronize with the
bloom of insects, a rich food source for their young. With earlier warming of the Arctic, however, the insect
population may have reached its peak before the birds arrive. An article I read some years ago described the vanishing of the
snowshoe hare in Montana and Idaho because the snow was coming later than in previous years. The snowshoe hare turned white on its evolved schedule—not the new

delayed snow schedule—and, before the snow arrived, he was a prime target for predators, white against a brown background. These are small, two-step
imbalances. They are replicated and magnified along a complex, multidimensional stairway of
global scale. When you look at whole ecosystems—that is, from plants, their flowers and fruits,
to pollinators, herbivores, and carnivores, up, down, and across the food web that represents
our planet’s rich but diminishing biodiversity— studies have indicated that if the temperature
increases at a rate of 0.1 degrees Centigrade per decade, about half of the ecosystem can adapt.
If the temperature rises at 0.3 degrees Centigrade per decade, only about 30 percent can adapt ,

and of that, only 17 percent or about one-sixth of forest ecosystems can adapt. In other words, if we ever decide to remove
the sun shade in a hurry or falter in keeping it there, few ecosystems would survive. Even if ecologists are only half right, is that a risk we are willing to

take? Stratospheric aerosol spraying is the archetypal geoengineering technique—a technofix that would be easy, effective, cheap, and have the most far-reaching
implications for all life on Earth, not just human life. So where are we? Multiple lines of attack that are not mutually exclusive and can complement each other are usually better
than just one. Plan B1—soaking up carbon—attacks the CO2 problem directly. Reforestation and carbon capture and storage deserve our continued full support. But overall,
Plan B1, especially oceanic intervention, looks very expensive, would require a major industrial mobilization, have a limited global effect, and take a long time for results—
probably too much, to do too little, and too late. Plan B2—managing the sun’s radiation—has the promise of a smaller industrial and budget outlay, could be deployed
reasonably quickly, would affect global climate patterns, and have an immediate effect on reducing heat. If deployed, however, it would probably have to be continued almost
indefinitely. It would substantially affect food sources and availability, and it certainly wouldn’t deal with a continuing build up of CO2 or with ocean acidification. Let’s look at a
few other issues. What is a looming catastrophe for some is a booming opportunity for others. The Dutch are delighted at the marketing prospects for their sea-wall expertise.
Russians happily anticipate a Siberian breadbasket. Some Brits are even looking to create a new Champagne district in Kent’s chalky soil. Newly accessible oil and gas reserves in
the Arctic provide long-term opportunities. Consider the shortened trade routes between Europe and Asia. Canada wants to ensure the Northwest Passage stays open and
under its control. The Northeast Passage above Siberia had 74 transits in 2013, up from just two by icebreakers a couple of years earlier. If we were to refreeze the Arctic, that
bellwether of climate change, and to engineer our climate back to “normal” (and, by the way, how to define that? Is it 50 years ago, or as of last quarter’s financial statement?),
a number of entrepreneurs—and politicians—would be quick to register their opposition. Not least, there is that defining capitalist mantra, “No infringement on economic
freedom.” Plan A, cutting emissions by mandate, taxes, or otherwise, is Exhibit No. 1 for infringing on economic freedom, one of the reasons there’s been so little headway on it.
Plan B, however, would be equally infringing. Both need regulation. Right now, there’s not a lot of that. In the absence of a strong international lead, or indeed a lead from the
government of any industrialized nation, the geoengineering field has been left wide open to actors from the private sector. Bill Gates is a leading financial supporter of
technologies with promise. The oil majors are deeply involved in studies and experiments. Universities are in on the act. Everyone is seeking patents on their ideas, and patents
are being recorded on the books far faster than either law or regulation can keep up. It’s fair to ask, without too much cynicism, will the fate of the Earth be in the hands of one
or two private companies or individuals that hold the legal rights and the technological levers to changing the climate? Humans have always wanted to control the weather. But
rain dances and cloud seeding have so far been local, not global, efforts, and they usually failed to deliver on their promise. If we ever get there, though, who will or who should
control the knobs on the global climate thermostat? In spite of a UN convention against it, some analysts project future weather wars, where one strongman closes down the
life-giving rain of his enemy—though that seems a bit far fetched, at least for now. In any case, India might not like its growing seasons affected by decisions made in
Washington, Moscow or Beijing—or by a Monsanto, Gazprom or Samsung either. Geoengineering is much more than a technofix to climate change. At its heart, it is a double-
barreled moral question—a question of justice between the current developed and developing worlds, and a question of justice between our generation and future ones. The
starting point is our failure so far adequately to address head on the scientific warnings of global warming. Geoengineering has been advanced as Plan B to buy time while we
sort out Plan A, and it’s a cheaper fix. It is not, however, a substitute. In practice, geoengineering has been used by some of the biggest fossil fuel emitters—coal, oil, gas, and
automotive interests—as a way to reduce incentives to cut CO2 emissions and to delay Plan A implementation. Up until 2006, for example, ExxonMobil had given $1.9 million
specifically to fund anti-climate studies by the Heartland Institute, a think tank spun off from the American Enterprise Institute. The donations were specific enough for the UK’s
Royal Society to ask ExxonMobil to stop funding studies that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.” That funding stream has
stopped, and to his credit, the current Exxon CEO has publically acknowledged that man-made fossil fuel emissions contribute to global warming. It’s perhaps easy to poke at the
big guys. Fundamentally, though, we’re all responsible for global warming, especially those of us in the developed world. Even if we ourselves are not big emitters, we willingly
feed off those who are. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” It is up to all of us, not just a few, to take action. Geoengineering is a case where we are trying to
have our cake and eat it too. The CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere so far will be there for centuries and will continue to heat up the globe by about another 1 degree
Centigrade, even if we were miraculously to add no more from now on. We’ve taken the benefits of fossil fuels now at the expense of poorer societies and future generations.
Geoengineering risks making similar mistakes. We humans as a species, if not all individuals, will probably survive, because we are exceptional adapters. Not every living thing on
this planet is. And unlike us, they won’t have a say in their future. Can the energy, optimism, and entrepreneurial spirit that have gotten us this far now be used to recognize the
long-term issues that we—and our life partners on the Earth—face, and do the right thing? Let me close with another quote from Clive Hamilton. He says: “The essential
 when we mess with ecological systems, things soon become much more complicated
message is that

than they first seem, and as the complications multiply so do the uncertainties and dangers.” Plan B,
geoengineering our Earth’s climate, as we now understand the options, is not an answer to our inability to address Plan A. We’re likely to hear a lot more about geoengineering
in the months and years ahead as a good response to global warming. It’s worth continuing investigation, but it’s not ready for prime time.

2. Adaptation is impossible absent committed mitigation efforts in the short-

run
Joseph Romm 16, MIT physics PhD, Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford
University Press, p. 140-145
Most environmental problems that people, communities, and governments have experience dealing with are reversible. A polluted lake or river can be
cleaned up and then used for swimming and fishing. A city with polluted air can put in place clean air standards and turn its brown haze into blue skies.
However, climate change is different from most environmental problems. The scientific literature has made it increasingly clear that key
impacts are irreversible on a time scale of centuries and possibly millennia. This means that climate
change creates risks that are unparalleled in human history. It also means that if we follow the traditional way of
dealing with an environmental problem, that is, wait until the consequences are obvious and unmistakable to

everybody, it will be “too late" to undo those consequences for a long, long time. Climate inaction inherently

raises issues of equity because it will harm billions of people who have contributed little or nothing to the

problem. However, what makes the issue unique in the annals of history is that the large-scale harm is irreparable on any
timescale that matters (and that we could avoid the worst of the irreparable harms at a
surprisingly low net cost, as discussed in Chapter Four). Because irreversibility is such a unique and
consequential fact about climate change , the world's leading climate scientists (and governments) took extra measures to
emphasize the issue in the most recent international assessment of climate science by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the
November 2014 full, final "synthesis" report in its Fifth Assessment all of the scientific and economic literature. In the IPCC's final "synthesis" report of
its Fourth Assessment, issued in 2007, irreversibility was only mentioned two times and there was minimal discussion in the Summary for Policymakers.
Seven years later, the "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC's synthesis report mentions "irreversible" 14 times and has extended discussions of
exactly what it means and why it matters. The full report has an even more detailed discussion. What do the world's leading scientists mean by
"irreversible impacts"? In the latest IPCC report, they explain that Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6 [where
emissions are cut sharply]. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of
net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to
millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period… It is virtually certain that
global mean sea-level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100 , with the amount of rise
dependent on future emissions. In other words, impacts will be much worse than described in this
report after 2100 in every case but the one where we sharply cut carbon dioxide starting now
(to stabilize at below 2°C total warming). In addition, whatever temperature the planet ultimately
hits thanks to human-caused warming, that is roughly as high as temperatures will stay for hundreds of years
after we bring total net human-caused carbon pollution emissions to zero. The "case of a large
net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period" means a time far beyond when
humanity has merely eliminated total net human-caused emissions—from deforestation and burning fossil fuels (and from
whatever amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks we have caused, such as defrosting permafrost). To start reversing the irreversible, we have to go

far below zero net emissions to actually sucking vast quantities of diffuse CO2 out of the air and putting it someplace
that is also permanent, which, according to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences report (discussed in Chapter Six), we currently do not know how to do
on a large scale. One
can envision such a day when we might be able to go far below zero—if we
sharply reduce net carbon pollution to zero by 2100, as we must to stabilize near 2°C. However, it
is much more difficult to imagine when it would happen if emissions are anywhere near current
levels by 2100, and we have started one or more major amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks that make the job of
getting to even zero net emissions doubly difficult. If we do not get on the 2°C path , then some of
the most serious climate changes caused by global warming could last a thousand years or more. The IPCC
explained in 2014, "Stabilisation of global average surface temperature does not imply stabilisation for all aspects of the climate system." That is to say,
as we warm above 2°C, then even at a point many hundreds of years from now when
temperatures start to drop, some changes in the climate—sea-level rise being the most obvious
example—will likely keep going and going. The IPCC reports are primarily reviews of the scientific literature, so the new focus on the
irreversible nature of climate change is no surprise. In a 2009 study titled "Irreversible Climate Change Because of Carbon Dioxide Emissions,"
researchers led by NOAA scientists concluded that "the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is
largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop." It is significant to note that the NOAA-led study warned that it was not just sea-level rise that
would be irreversible: Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from
current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall
reductions in several regions comparable to those of the "dust bowl" era and inexorable sea level rise. Recent studies strongly support that finding for
both sea-level rise and Dust-Bowlification of some of the world's most productive agricultural lands, as we have seen. This 2014 Synthesis report may
be the first time the world's leading scientists and governments explain why the irreversibility of impacts makes inaction so uniquely problematic. Here
is the key finding (emphasis in original): Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with
adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe,
widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of
risks due to adverse side-effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe,
widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from
near-term mitigation efforts. Why is this conclusion so salient? The IPCC is acknowledging that mitigation
efforts taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have risks in addition to their cobenefits —"possible adverse side effects of
large-scale deployment of low-carbon technology options and economic costs," as the full report puts it. However, the risks

involved in reducing emissions are both quantitatively and qualitatively different than the
risks deriving from inaction because they are not likely to be anywhere near as "severe,
widespread, and irreversible." The full 2014 "Synthesis" report expands on this point, noting that "Climate change risks
may persist for millennia and can involve very high risk of severe impacts and the presence of
significant irreversibilities combined with limited adaptive capacity." In sharp contrast, "the
stringency of climate policies can be adjusted much more quickly in response to observed
consequences and costs and create lower risks of irreversible consequences." Put another way, if
some aspect of the emissions reduction strategy turns out to start having unexpected,
significant negative consequences, humanity can quickly adjust to minimize costs and risks.
However, inaction—failing to embrace strong mitigation—will lead to expected climate impacts
that are not merely very long lasting and irreversible, but potentially beyond adaptation. For
instance, sea-level rise would become so great, so rapid, and so unstoppable that we simply have

to abandon the vast majority of coastal cities.

 AT: Hart
Booo @ hart
Ed Wiebe 17, Research Associate, Climate Modeling Group, University of Victoria, 1/2/17,
“The Ironic Hubris of Michael Hart: Wrong About Climate Change,”
http://scribili.ca/michael_hart.php
The strikethroughs of ‘homemade leaflet’ are in the original and demonstrate our
author dunking on their hack
"The planet does not have a temperature. You cannot stick a thermometer in somewhere
and get the planet's temperature." -- Michael Hart

Hart takes the merit out of

Yes, this is actually a direct quote.

Professor Emeritus.
I was directed to an interview with Michael Hart who has written a self-published
homemade leafletbook called HUBRIS: The Troubling Science, Economics, and Politics of
Climate Change. Based on the interview alone the homemade leafletbook is absolutely
terrible and I will outline why below. In the preface to the homemade leafletbook Michael
Hart makes some revealing and important comments.
MH: By 2010, I had read much more and discussed the issue more widely. Seventeen
graduate students joined me in a summer seminar, reading a wide range of sources, making
presentations, and discussing the science, economics, and politics of climate change. I
enjoyed the seminar, as did they, and I repeated it in the summers of 2011, 2012, and 2013,
and in the winter of 2015, involving 48 more students. For the last seminar, I circulated a
draft version of this book as the basis for class discussion, much of which had been
prepared during my 2013-14 sabbatical. In all five seminars, class discussion was lively, and
the book benefited immensely from that discussion and from the presentations and reports
prepared by the 65 students.
I do not actually know what Michael Hart has said to students but if it is anything like what
he has said in the interview I found or in the snippets I read from his homemade leafletbook
his possible use and misuse of his position as a professor emeritus to influence students
appalls me and should appall you as well. I have taken quoted text, shown indented and
in grey, directly from the interview. My comments follow each quote.
MH: relies on poor science advanced by activists to push an agenda. I learned that both
domestic and international actors had succeeded in using the poorly understood science of
climate change to advance an ambitious environmental agenda focused on increasing
centralized control over people’s daily lives.
The science of climate change is not "poor" or "poorly understood". Climate Change is a
mature field of research involving a wide range of disciplines. Its origins go back at least to
Joseph Fourier in 1824. Furthermore, it's clear from this tiny fragment of text that whatever
his intentions and experience Michael Hart is motivated by ideological considerations
rather than evidence (e.g. "activists to push an agenda", "increasing centralized control
over people’s daily lives"). Hart's personal or indeed any other political ideology is
irrelevant. Science doesn't concern itself with what people believe nor does belief affect
what is observed (climate is changing rapidly) and what is demonstrably the cause
(human activities and especially burning fossil fuels).
Further evidence that Michael Hart simply doesn’t understand climate change and
science in general is apparent in the following quotes. I’ve pointed out the errors or
misapprehensions following each example.

MH: [Climate] is in a constant state of flux due to such factors as changes in the
output of the sun, changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and oscillations in ocean
heat uptake.
Hart has included this summary of concepts related to natural climate change over the
Earth’s history to suggest he knows what he’s talking about. He doesn't.
MH: The alarm movement has taken one such factor
The term "alarm movement" is a dog whistle for people in similar ideological categories to
him. It’s not the kind of term someone who understands climate change or is actually
interested in a productive exploration of the economic consequences of climate change
would use.
MH: the minor atmospheric greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide is a minor constituent of the atmosphere but it is not a minor greenhouse
gas. Here Hart could have spoken to the faculty in the Department of Geography and
Environment Studies at Carleton where a course called Weather and Water is taught in
second year.
GEOG 2013 [0.5 credit] Weather and Water Introduction to climate, weather and the
hydrological cycle. Physical properties of the atmosphere, radiation and energy balances,
global circulation, atmospheric moisture and precipitation, weather systems and
forecasting, mechanisms of climate change.
The physics and chemistry of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans is very well
understood. Relatively small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are the principal cause of
the warming we observe in the global climate system. Since Hart is using his lack of
understanding of this as the basis for his homemade leafletbook, the homemade leafletbook
is suspect and probably worthless. There are many, many resources available
from credible sources that would help Hart understand this.
MH: to claim that human activity is changing the atmosphere to an alarming degree,
leading inexorably to a much warmer climate.
Yes, it's true that the scientists "claim" that humans are altering climate. However, since this
claim was first made in (at least) 1824 (Joseph Fourier) the scientific understanding of
climate change, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and the impacts of human
activities has advanced to the point where we are certain enough. See for example, and for
more references to research papers than you could ever wish to read, the 25 years of IPCC
reports, then hold that research up against a homemade leafletbook like Michael Hart's.
Hart might argue here that I am committing a terrible disservice to humanity by dismissing
his arguments in this way. I'm not. He's wrong about climate change science.
MH: While increased atmospheric carbon dioxide – from .03 to .04 percent of the
atmosphere – should lead to some warming, the extent of that warming within the
context of a complex system that is in a constant state of flux due to numerous
forcings and feedbacks is highly exaggerated.
This is simply false. Hart hasn't bothered to learn what we know, to ask any of the easily
accessible experts near to hand. Michael Hart has assumed that he knows better than every
major scientific body on Earth. Hubris indeed. See for example any introductory class on
climate in an atmospheric science program at a university anyhere . Raymond
Pierrehumbert (an expert) has written a beautiful summary article in Physics Today.
There's also an interesting research paper in Nature showing the results of ten years of
empirical observations directly linking observed changes in the atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide specifically to observed changes surface energy balance. Hart could ask
experts to help explain these papers and many, many more to him, or he could attend a first
or second year course at a university but I believe he would simply not like what they told
him as it would too inconvenient for his ideological position. The danger that Hart faces is
that, though his homemade leafletbook will not be read widely, those who do read it will
mostly be unable to accept the facts of climate change and will like and praise his
homemade leafletbook because it synchronises nicely with their own beliefs.
MH: The best evidence indicates that the mild warming at the end of the 20th
century was well within historical and geologic experience.
This is false. There is strong evidence that the rate of (global) warming in the past century
exceeds any climate change in the past 11 000 years. There is evidence from specific sites
(ice cores) that the recently observed warming is of the magnitude of past
glacial/interglacial changes and that the rate is unprecedented for past million or so years
at least and almost certainly even further back. One example in support of my claim is a
paper by Marcott, et al, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past
11 300 Years, Science 393, 1198 (2013); DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026. Organisations like
NASA have resources to help you understand the scale of past and present warming as well.
But don't limit yourself to NASA. All of the major scientific bodies around the Earth have
resources to help you learn.
MH: Over the first decade and a half of the 21stcentury, there has been no net
warming.
This is false. See the attached figures showing observed global average surface temperature
from several different international scientific bodies. The first four are from the UK Met
Office, the Berkeley Earth project, The Japan Meteorological Agency, and NASA GISS. Click
on the images for a high resolution version.
MH: The alarmist movement relies extensively on flawed computer models to make
its case.
From the homemade leafletbook (p. 55): Areas that lend themselves particularly well to the
claims of post-normal science are those for which direct observa and experimentation are
not possible but for which computer models can be used as a virtual substitute.
This is false. Climate models are not flawed in the sense that he appears to believe they are.
It is instead Michael Hart's understanding of what a model is that is flawed. All of the
computer models used by scientists are well documented and the research undertaken to
make them and the results they produce are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Mathematical models are used in all areas of science and computers are frequently used to
find solutions to the equations, to explore the relationships between different properties of
the models, and indeed to make discoveries. The relationships used in climate models are
physical. That is they are based on known properties of nature explored via physics and
chemistry. The models encode what we know and define relationships between differents
parts of the climate system. Important components, for example radiative transfer in the
atmosphere, use the same physics as is used in a vast array of other scientific and
engineering applications that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate and climate
change. The same is true for chemistry and biology. The problem may be that Hart doesn’t
understand what all scientists know: all models are wrong, some models are useful. It's
astonishing that someone with the necessary resources immediately to hand at a major
university in the capital city of Canada could have so apparently willfully ignored the
opportunities to learn. Hart should consult with some experts before speaking on the topic
of climate change again. He won't though, because his ideological certainty prevents him
from accepting what the science tells him. Finally, note another use of the dog-whistle term
"alarmist".
MH: As UK science journalist Matt Ridley points out
Matt Ridley is, as Hart notes, a writer not a scientist. Ridley's opinion is irrelevant. Consider
that the mention of a known climate change science denialist appeals to the intended
audience for the homemade leafletbook and, presumably, Hart's ideological bent. Based on
the names mentioned in the interview, in the preface to his homemade leafletbook, and in
some of the quotes that precede chapters, one is forced to ask is Hart favouring ideology or
science?
MH: More than one motivation drives the abuse of science. Among scientists, the
primary reasons are money, career advancement, and prestige. In order to pursue
their research programs, scientists need money from governments and foundations.
The implication here, with the word "abuse" is to suggest that scientists are simply doing
whatever is needed to line their pockets with gold. This is nonsense. This sort of mistake
could only come from someone with absolutely no relevant background and experience (see
Hart's CV below). Scientists have flaws but science cannot tolerate wide spread abuse as is
suggested here. It simply couldn't happen without a secret conspiracy invloving every
scientist everywhere colluding to obfuscate and manufacture research. It is a risible notion.
MH: As I explain in my book, over the years, much of peer review has degenerated
into pal review that maintains the dominant perspective.
From the homemade leafletbook's preface: Three anonymous readers provided comments
for UBC Press, which decided not to proceed to its publication, despite their earlier
successful experience with three of my previous books. As discussed in chapter three, peer
review no longer serves the constructive role it may once have played.
I think those two quotes, from the interview and the preface of Michael Hart's homemade
leafletbook are a good explanation for his strange notions about peer review. He got
realistic, honest, and forthright reviews and he's quite petulant about it. Peer review
worked as it should. Hart didn't take advantage of the opportunity that thoughtful criticism
from reviewers provides to improve his work. Scientists do use peer review to improve
their research. They use the reviews to improve their publications. Yes, some of that work is
done simply to satisfy the reviewers but much of the extra work does result in better
research that stands up better against further scrutiny.
Next, Hart does a bit of crabby old dissenter scientist name dropping in the interview,
invoking Freeman Dyson and others. Dyson is (was?) a brilliant physicist who made very
important contributions to science. However, that record of past achievements does not
make him an expert on climate. Dyson is wrong about climate change.
 MH: For some, such as movement leaders, UN officials, and many politicians, the
issue is being cynically exploited to advance their agenda of greater control over
human lives.
The idea that the UN and "left-wing politicians" (a term used elswhere in the interview) are
working on an agenda of control over people's lives is a well-known conspiracy theory. It is
a sort of catch-all for libertarians and other extreme right agitators. They frequently use the
the catch phrase Agenda 21 online. That this kind of conspiracy nonsense would even be
hinted at only serves to demonstrate that Michael Hart is truly worthy of the distinction of
cranky bearded old white emeritus professor. I am very concerned that this is the kind of
thing he shares with students.
Asked if climate change is just another alarmist fad MH responds: I believe it is a similar
phenomenon, but one that has captured the imagination and concerns of more people and
has more support among elites.
Need one say anything about this at this point? Of course it's captured the imagination of
people and has support among the well-educated, it is a fact. One mention of the word
"elites" is enough I think to tell a whole story about making evidence to suit one's ideology.
They next quote is long but I feel it's necessary to give the whole context. The question
comes first, in bold with added italics for emphasis, then Michael Hart's response follows.
Q: You state that "official science," the alliance of governments and bogus science, is a form
of immorality pretending to be virtue. You conclude the book with a warning: The
apparently idealistic combat against climate change, you assert, may well prove to be the
mechanism for ushering in a Utopia. You maintain that utopian dreams may appear in the
beginning to be about freedom and quality of life and yet will degenerate into what you and
other thinkers have called “totalitarian democracy” — which means the destruction of
authentic liberal democracy. Is this inevitable?
MH: I am optimistic. I do not think its long-term success is inevitable, but it will take
a determined effort by people of faith and conscience to point to its darker motives
and its sinister exploitation of populist fears. We know from history that such
movements have a predictable life cycle: They emerge with much enthusiasm
among intellectual elites, they gain a broad following by focusing on alarmist
predictions before becoming part of the political mainstream, and then decline into
a minor movement among fringe intellectuals as a new alarm movement takes its
place. The problem is that such movements can do a lot of damage and remain
embedded within the intellectual community with the ability to rise, phoenix-like, as
a new alarm. Former adherents of the eugenics movement and its successor,
population control, for example, are now an integral part of the climate change
alarm movement.
There is so much of interest here. We have the claim that official science is the alliance of
governments and bogus science and that it is immoral. What does official mean? Real
science? True science? Science conducted by trained experts? Or is it simply whatever
scientific results that don't agree with Hart's personal opinions? And what about this
question of morality? Does Hart mean to say that using facts, evidence, reason, and so on is
immoral? Surely immorality comes into play when considering how we use what we know.
And more significantly morality is important to consider when writing a homemade
leafletbook that purports to explain climate change while ignoring what we know.
Then there appears to be (I haven't read the homemade leafletbook) an out of sorts for Hart
("may well prove to be the mechanism for ushering in a Utopia", but see cartoon below)
though I may be misunderstanding that. Consider Hart's response. He has certainly
confused two very different ideas. One is some notion of activism around the real issue of
climate change. The other is the science of climate change itself. Which of these two is he
referring to when he says "darker motives and sinister exploitation", "such movements have
a predictable life cycle"? And with special interest we see his call to "people of faith and
conscience" to act. Obviously people of faith have to do what their faith tells them, they are
used to ignoring or not requiring evidence. But people of conscience are different. They
ought to do what is right. What is right with regard to climate change is to look at the facts
and evidence that support what the entire scientific body on Earth agree is true: Climate
change is real, it is caused by human activity, it will harm many, many people, and we all
need to act collectively.
But my absolute favourite part of the interview is the comparison he makes of climate
change to eugenics. Hart has mentioned the cynicism of politicians with regard to taking
advantage of people who may not be well informed about science but can't see it when he
does it himself. It is absolutely repugnant.
I don't know anything about Hart's religious beliefs, if any, and I don't really care to know.
This interview was conducted "during a conference on Catholic Perspectives on the
Environment". Hart uses terms like post-Christian and faith so this may suggest that part of
his ideological confusion is religious. That makes me wonder about questions of Christian
morality and ethics in general. Ethically speaking Hart's position is hopeless. The right thing
to do is to listen to experts when they show you what they know on a topic. Absolutely
question the experts, challenge them, look for flaws in the work. But, to challenge someone
you have to at least demonstrate to them and anyone else paying attention that you know
something about the topic being discussed. Hart has not done that. Morally speaking he's
wrong too. The moral thing for a Christian to do would be to think about the possibility of
harm to millions of people from climate change first, then see what the experts tell you is at
risk and what can be done, then act.
The argument is morally bankrupt, too. It excuses our bad actions by pointing to others who
are doing worse things. We'd never say to our child: "It's okay to shoplift that chocolate bar,
Johnny, because other people are stealing a lot more."
Yet some people are comfortable with the same moral reasoning when it comes to our
carbon emissions, even though these emissions are relentlessly stealing our children's
future well-being.
[Added 2017-01-02]: Canada must not give up the fight on climate change
the Obama administration has relied on stealth to implement its climate change agenda
Stealth? This is just stupid.
climate change has added to the momentum of the broader secularization of society and the
pursuit of anti-human policies and programs.
Given that human-caused climate change is a fact this is just paranoia. Or, maybe it is real
and insightful. No, I don't think so. Hart is just blaming other things on the so-called climate-
change agenda and forgetting what the science tells us about the kind of problems humanity
will really be trying to solve in the near future. It's a completely irresponsible position to
take. And what about these "anti-human" policies? Who thinks like that? Not someone who
actually cares about human welfare.
I think Pope Francis may have been motivated by the Church's concern for human life and
other moral issues, but in commenting favorably on the climate change movement, he has
opened himself up to charges of being naïve and unwise.
One of my favourite things to see is catholic believers (yes, presumed in this case) criticising
the Pope on questions of morality. It really demonstrates how flimsy the whole edifice of
faith really is.
the real issue is the hunger for power to change economic and political systems in order to
achieve a wide-ranging agenda. In the words of former UNFCCC Secretary Christiana
Figueres, the goal of "the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of
the economic structure of the world."
I found a more legitimate source reporting this quote and a bit more context (of course
there's more context). The quote Hart uses is easily found online but tellingly it is almost
exclusively used by climate change deniers and peculiar right-wing political dissenters and
outcasts. Figueres made a similar comment in April of 2013 and has repeated it in various
forms since that time.
"There’s nothing that humanity has ever attempted that is of greater impact than what
we’re trying to do right now," Figueres said. "This is a full transformation of the economic
structure, of the energy system and of the economic logic that underpins growth. It’s a full
transformation of social values and behaviors", Sydney Morning Herald.
Why would "a political movement exploiting fear of climate change to push a utopian,
humanist agenda that most people would find abhorrent" be so open about this brazen
attempt "to advance an ambitious environmental agenda focused on increasing centralized
control over people’s daily lives."? It's because that's not what Figueres was doing. Instead
she is trying to find language to communicate the magnitude of the problem we are
collectively facing. What a reasonable, mature adult with an education takes from the sort of
language that Figueres used is entirely different from what Hart wants to convey with his
snippet.
At the end of Chapter 3 of his homemade leafletbook Michael Hart writes:
Many of the institutional and ideological problems discussed above are an integral part of
climate science: insistence on consensus and the sanctity of peer review, the drive to gain
and maintain funding, ... dependence on virtual science based on incomplete, questionable
data, and heroic assumptions, reliance on advocacy science and observational studies,
claims of post-normal science and the resort to official science. ... the scientific enterprise
relies on two critical norms: rigorous adherence to a methodology that values
experimentation, close observation, verification, quantification, replicability, and
falsifiability, while at the same time maintaining a firm commitment to absolute honesty
and scepticism in reporting the results. Many climate scientists, however, seem to have
adopted a rather cavalier attitude to the demands of scientific methodology while vilifying
scepticism and insisting on full acceptance of a consensus view of the issues. The result is a
discipline easily exploited by those with sinister motives.
This could only be written by someone who reads far too many books on the philosphy of
science and refuses to talk to working scientists from any field let alone those working on
climate change. Contrary to the stunningly stupid quote I started this whole analysis with
climate is studied with actual physical thermometers stuck into the Earth in various ways.
On Hart's website for his terrible homemade leafletbook you can read "the importance of
satellite data that do not show warming of the troposphere". Perhaps Hart doesn't realize
that the satellites he praises do not use actual thermometers stuck into the Earth. Instead
they use very complex computer models to change electromagnetic radiation measured by
the satellite into an approximate temperature of a particular part of the Earth and

atmosphere. His wrongness truly knows no bounds.

Hart also finishes his chapter with a frightening reference to sinister motives. Who writes
like this? Someone with a strong ideological position concerned only with there own
motives is a likely quess.
There really are only two choices that Michael Hart and his ilk can make: ignore the
evidence and dream of a libertarian (or similar) future where no one has to take
responsibility for anything, or recognize what we know and work to reduce the harm
caused by human activities. Decent, thoughtful, rational, reasonable people are already
working hard to change our systems to produce less carbon pollution because it's the right
thing to do.
On Michael Hart's own site for his self-published homemade leafletbook he lists some
reviews. They are written by:
Dr. Helena Aves, retired geologist, "I am a geologist and have been studying this topic for
over six years in a non-official capacity";
G. Cornelis van Kooten, environmental economist, University of Victoria, "The author deals
with the science and economics of climate change as one who really understands what he is
talking about" (really?);
Herman J. Dost, Thunder Bay, Ontario, "It is rare to read a book that is so scholarly" (expert
opinion?);
Andy Jones, Stony Plain, Alberta, "The book is self-published and Believers don’t stock the
truth.";
Richard Hofer, Montreal, "never, ever, rely on anything superficially reported. Always start
with a reading of the complete document." (unless, apparently the document is
inconvenient for you);
William Bourke, Sydney, Australia, "an in depth and comprehensive rebuttal of the science";
Rob Scalpel, Surry, BC, humorously writes "ClimateChange™", yes, with the little tradmark
symbol.
Hart's background is in History, Mediaeval History, Political Science, English, and
Philosophy, and Canon Law. These are not topics that necessarily lend themselves well to a
book about what we should do about climate change. That's not to say that his background
need be a barrier to writing an interesting important book on climate change though as
shown above he does not seem to have overcome his lack of relevant background
experience. There are many experts at Carlton and other nearby Universities whom he
could have consulted about his homemade leafletbook but he apparently only selected
those who fell neatly in line with his preferred point of view.
 AT International Business Daily
They’re fake news when it comes to warming and environmental facts
D. Van Zandt, 8-14-2018, American academic administrator and currently President of The
New School, Previously he served as Dean of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law,
writing at Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News), founded in 2015, is an independent online
media outlet. MBFC News is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive
news practice, "Investors Business Daily", Media Bias/Fact Check,
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through
story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts
to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and
omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this
category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources. Factual Reporting: MIXED World Press Freedom Rank: USA
45/180 History Founded in 1984 by entrepreneur and stockbroker William O’Neil, Investors Business Daily (IBD) is a
conservative American newspaper and website covering the stock market, international business, finance and
economics. In March, 2016, IBD became a weekly publication that focuses more on digital operations. The publication continues to
use the Investor’s Business Daily name as it continues to publish daily on its website. Although IBD mostly reports on economics
and finance they also allow
lobbyists and PR reps for right wing think tanks like the Heartland
Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to write pseudo-scientific propaganda. Funded
by / Ownership IBD is owned by Investors Business Daily Inc and is funded through advertising, subscriptions and investment
product sales. Analysis / Bias In review, Investors Business Daily primarily reports on economics, markets and investing. They also
report on politics, especially through their editorial section with a very strong right wing bias. There is moderate use of loaded
language in their articles that significantly favors the right, such as this: Democratic Socialism: Who Knew That ‘Free’ Could Cost So
Much? For the most part IBD sources their market information to credible mainstream and government websites, however they
occasionally utilize factually mixed sources such as the Daily Signal. Investors
Business Daily strays from the
consensus of science in regards to climate change and they have made outrageous and false
claims, such as Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived under England’s Government health
care system. This is a false propaganda statement as Stephen Hawking is a citizen of the UK and
lives there. Hawking claims the British Healthcare system saved his life and kept him alive to old
age. A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers . Here are a few
of the many we found: IBD editorial board claims that cap-and-trade is unpopular in America –
FALSE Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill – PANTS ON FIRE
Investor’s Business Daily editorial misrepresents study to claim plants will prevent dangerous
climate change – FALSE Was it recently revealed that the U.S. found uranium in Iraq after the invasion in 2003 – FALSE
Overall, we would rate Investors Business Daily Right Biased based on right leaning economic
and market positions. We would also give them a High factual rating on strictly investing and
market news. However, editorially IBT is clearly a Questionable source with promotion of right
wing conspiracy theories and numerous failed fact checks.
 AT: Matt Ridley

Ridley = Idiot
Romm 14 - Ph.D. in physics from M.I.T. and researched his thesis on physical oceanography at
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Senior Fellow at American Progress
(Joe, “Matt Ridley Returns With Error-Riddled Articles, As Wall Street Journal Discredits Itself”,
9/10/14, https://thinkprogress.org/matt-ridley-returns-with-error-riddled-articles-as-wall-
street-journal-discredits-itself-c7ca0368a1e5#.dhvxdu88r)
Matt Ridley, perhaps the most debunked and anti-scientific Journal columnist in recent
memory, is back from his hiatus. Turns out, when you look closely, Ridley’s self-proclaimed pause as a Wall Street
Journal columnist was about as real as the supposed “pause” in global warming. Back in July 2013, Ridley announced a permanent
hiatus from his error-riddled “Mind & Matter” Wall Street Journal column. That “farewell” column was thoroughly eviscerated by
astronomer Phil Plait, who shows that Ridley’s arguments on climate science are “ wrong” and
“untenable.” But non-columnist Ridley is back with two more risible WSJ columns in the last week — they don’t make hiatuses
like they used to — arguing for the umpteenth time that global warming is nothing to worry about. The first column on September 4,
“Whatever Happened to Global Warming?” was thoroughly debunked by Columbia’s Jeffrey Sachs and Climate Science Watch
among others. Five days later, the WSJ ran “Matt Ridley Replies to His Climate-Change Critics.” This is one of the most nonsensical
climate pieces ever to appear in the Wall Street Journal. Half the piece is Ridley’s usual confusion and disinformation. But the other
half of the piece he spends trying to argue that Sachs didn’t actually write the piece in HuffPost with his name on it. Bizarre. In case
you were among the 0.00001% of the population that were wondering, yes Sachs wrote the piece. On top of that, the Wall
Street Journal adds an editorial note up front to lend its nano-credibility to the pico-credibility
of Ridley: Yes, “the enforcers of climate-change orthodoxy.” I guess this is what Ridley and the WSJ call the world’s leading
climate scientists and pretty much every serious scientific and government body that understands science. A little history is in
order to see who exactly disagrees with Ridley and the Wall Street Journal. In December 2012, the
Journal published a Ridley piece, “Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change,” (falsely) asserting that observations
suggest global warming will be so low as to “be beneficial.” As I noted at the time, that piece was so riddled with basic
math and science errors it raised the question of how the Journal can possibly maintain its
reputation as a credible source of news and financial analysis. Ridley and the Journal apparently
don’t know the difference between water vapor and clouds . They don’t understand the basic
concept of climate sensitivity. And they can’t do simple math . How bad was that piece? Even the
climatologist cited by Ridley said he “is just plain wrong about future warming.” But it is
standard practice for Ridley not to actually read the scientific literature he cites, as I show. How
anti-scientific was the piece? Many of the country’s leading climate experts dismantled it in an excellent piece by Media Matters,
“WSJ’s Climate ‘Dynamite’ Is A Dud.” Here’s just one: [A]s John Abraham, an IPCC reviewer and the director of the Climate Science
Rapid Response Team, put it to Media Matters: the
column “has such elementary errors in it that [ it] casts
doubt on the author’s understanding of any aspects of climate change .” I can understand why
Ridley and the WSJ bristle at the “orthodoxy” of basic science and math — it is inconvenient for
their argument that global warming is nothing to worry about and might actually be beneficial.
As an aside, for those who didn’t know Ridley, the WSJ noted in the 2012 piece that his “family leases land for coal mining in
northern England, on a project that will cease in five years,” a point that is strangely absent from his recent columns. Go figure. As to
Ridley’s current attempt to remove the batteries from the world’s smoke detectors, it simply defies logic: The climate-research
establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped
since shortly before this century began. Except that isn’t what the climate-research establishment actually believes or says. As we’ve
pointed out many times, more than 90 percent of human-caused warming was always expected to go into the ocean, and it
continues to do so at an alarming pace. And of course we learned in 2012 that Greenland’s ice melt increased five-fold since the mid-
1990s. Then last month scientists reported that Greenland and West Antarctica’s ice sheet more than doubled their ice sheet losses
in the last five years. A previous study had found “sea level rising 60% faster than projected.” But hey, the Wall Street Journal and
Matt Ridley say “The climate-research establishment has finally admitted” that global warming “stopped” in the late 1990s. How can
anybody take these people seriously? Much as we might have wished for it, global warming hasn’t stopped and many of its most
worrisome manifestations have accelerated. Ridley’s
entire argument boils down to the supposed hiatus in
surface temperatures — where a tiny fraction of warming actually goes  — since the late 1990s. Yet
somehow, despite this supposed hiatus, 2010 was the hottest year on record and the decade of the 2010s was the hottest on record.
As the study I cited at the top made clear, there’s no “pause” in warming, even for surface air temperatures. At this point, the
remaining question is, why have surface temperatures slowed their growth, when ocean temperatures and Arctic sea ice and
glaciers and the great ice sheets — which are where 95 percent of global warming ends up — have seen accelerated warming?
Ridley pins his entire “we don’t have to worry about global warming” argument on just one of
many recent papers attempting to explain the apparent slowdown in surface air temperatures :
The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, “was roughly
half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle.” In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and
1990s — which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict
about three degrees of warming by the end of the century — had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of
the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether. Let’s set aside for the
umpteenth time that man-made warming of the past 20 years hasn’t been wiped out — indeed it has accelerated in many worrisome
areas. While it’s true that the press release for this paper puts half the attribution of recent warming to a natural cycle, that actually
comes from a previous paper, which was received for review back in 2012. Ridley presumably knows this because he left it out:
“Rapid warming in the last two and a half decades of the 20th century, they proposed in an earlier study, was roughly half due to
global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle….” Since then, however, the world’s leading scientists have explained
that all of the warming since 1950 is due to human causes. In September 2013, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On
Climate Change (IPCC) — hundreds of the world’s top scientists and climate experts — released the first part of its Fifth Assessment
Report, a summary report of the scientific literature. That summary was signed off on line-by-line by the world’s major governments.
The IPCC concluded, “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this
period” from 1951 to 2010. In other words, the best estimate is that humans are responsible for all of the warming we have
experienced since 1950 –- based on a review of observations and analysis published in the scientific literature. Ridley wants you to
believe that global warming has stopped, which it hasn’t. And he wants you to believe that the human contribution to recent
warming is small so you’ll believe future warming will also be small. But that is also false. Amusingly, Ridley ends his latest response
to the “orthodoxy” this way: Soon after my article was published, another peer-reviewed paper appeared in the Journal Nature
Climate Change, about as mainstream a climate science publication as you can find. It is entitled: “Climate model simulations of the
observed early-2000s hiatus of global warming. Yes, Ridley is excited that the title of a very recent article used the phrase “early-
2000s hiatus of global warming.” But of course that study was on surface air temperatures. And if Ridley had bothered to read it,
which he apparently didn’t, he would know that it debunked his entire argument that the climate models are wrong and that the
planet has stopped heating up. That study “vindicates climate models” as Phys.org put it, and it showed that “climate models can
recreate the slowdown in global warming since 1998, as long as they correctly factor in crucial variables such as the state of the El
Niño system.” Doh! As the study’s news release says of the last decade, “Almost all of the heat trapped by additional greenhouse
gases during this period has been shown to be going into the deeper layers of the world’s oceans.” This new study that Ridley and
the Wall Street Journal embrace reconfirms that the latest climate models are indeed accurate (once the El Niño Southern
Oscillation is taken into account). That means if we continue on our path of general inaction on climate change (the one they favor),
we face 9°F warming for the U.S., faster sea level rise, more extreme weather, and permafrost collapse.” I will end with one of the
country’s leading climatologists, Michael Mann, who made the following point to me about the WSJ piece: What’s
particularly
sad is that at the same time the Wall Street Journal editorial board seems intent on leading its
readers off a cliff, more and more of the legitimate business community is recognizing and
speaking out on the very real threat posed by climate change and on the urgent need to fight it
head on to avert an economic calamity (see the recent “Risky Business report by Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and
Henry Paulson). The Journal’s disinformation on and denial of climate change is a betrayal of their
readership, who rely on accurate and honest assessments of risk to make sensible investment
choices.
 AT: No Peer Reviewed Journal

Journals are a bad standard because they require model certainty that is
impossible-that’s Stern.
Miquel Angel Rodriguez Arias 14, Institut de Ciències del Mar, 11-12-2014, “Are you aware of
any peer-reviewed paper that explicitly classifies current global climate change as an existential
risk (risk of human extinction)?” Research Gate,
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_aware_of_any_peer-
reviewed_paper_that_explicitly_classifies_current_global_climate_change_as_an_existential_ri
sk_risk_of_human_extinction
No, because is a question very hard to answer from the point of view of research . In order to
answer this question you need two ingredients: a model of future climate (we have this
already) and a model of human extinction linked to environmental change (that we lack; we have
a model of human extinction in terms of nuclear warfare, astronomical body impact, or pandemics, all of them spiced with a lot of Sci-Fi stuff).
 A2: Forests Counterplan

Forestation programs won’t solve, need emission reductions

Shani Rohatyn, 9-22, 22, Science, Limited climate change mitigation potential through
forestation of the vast dryland regions, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm9684

Forestation of the global drylands has been suggested to be a way to decrease global warming,
but how much promise does it actually have? Rohatyn et al. found that the climatic benefits are
minor. Although drylands have considerable carbon sequestration potential, which could be
used to lower the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thereby slow warming,
the reduction of albedo caused by forestation would counteract most of that effect. So,
although forestation is clearly important, it cannot substitute for reducing emissions. —HJS

Abstract

Forestation of the vast global drylands has been considered a promising climate change
mitigation strategy. However, its actual climatic benefits are uncertain because the forests’
reduced albedo can produce large warming effects. Using high-resolution spatial analysis of
global drylands, we found 448 million hectares suitable for afforestation. This area’s carbon
sequestration potential until 2100 is 32.3 billion tons of carbon (Gt C), but 22.6 Gt C of that is
required to balance albedo effects. The net carbon equivalent would offset ~1% of projected
medium-emissions and business-as-usual scenarios over the same period. Focusing forestation
only on areas with net cooling effects would use half the area and double the emissions offset.
Although such smart forestation is clearly important, its limited climatic benefits reinforce the
need to reduce emissions rapidly.

Leveraging the ability of forests to sequester carbon is considered a promising approach to

mitigating global climate change (1–3). Forestation (including afforestation to create new forests
and reforestation to restore depleted forests) is also known to cool the local climate by
increasing evaporation and inducing increased cloud formation (4, 5). A rich body of scientific
research supports tree planting as an effective approach to mitigating global warming. Griscom
et al. (2) calculate that reforestation of ~700 Mha in temperate and tropical zones would result
in sequestration of almost three billion tons of carbon per year (Gt C year−1). Bastin et al. (3)
refer to tree restoration as “among the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation.”
They estimate that reforesting 1700 Mha could potentially sequester 205.7 Gt C (133.2 to 276.2
Gt C) over the lifetime of the forests (6).

Trees sequester atmospheric CO2, and thus planting has a cooling effect by lowering its
atmospheric concentration (7). Forestation also reduces the reflectance of shortwave radiation
(albedo) more than most other forms of land coverage and thus increases net radiation and
sensible heat flux, creating local and, potentially, global warming effects (8). These contrasting
effects have long been recognized (9–11). However, this warming effect is largely confined to
boreal regions. Recognition of this phenomenon is evident in recent publications supporting
reforestation as a climate mitigation tool (2, 12), wherein the albedo effect was avoided by
excluding the boreal biome from the analysis to obtain maximal climatic benefits. However,
there are recent indications that albedo warming effects are also substantial in temperate zones
and hot drylands (13, 14). In some dryland regions, the albedo warming effect of afforestation
may strongly outweigh the cooling effect of carbon sequestration owing to the change from
bright desert land to darker dense forest cover (15).

….

Previous estimates of the potential to mitigate climatic warming through large-scale forest
restoration projects predicted a mitigation effect much larger than the results of this study.
Using the restoration opportunities map of Potapov et al. (20), Griscom et al. (2) estimated that
over an 80-year forest lifetime, the global reforestation of 700 Mha globally (~30% in drylands)
could mitigate climatic warming to a maximum of 200 Gt C, which is nearly twice the value we
obtained. This translates to a forestation sequestration potential per unit area of ∼300 t C ha−1
over that period. Similarly, Bastin et al. (3) estimated a potential carbon stock density of ∼200 t
C ha−1 for the restoration of deserts, xeric shrublands, and Mediterranean forests. Both
estimates are considerably higher than those of the present study. These differences likely arise
from the additional consideration in the present study of two main factors: (i) the potential
sequestration of current vegetation cover before reforestation; and (ii) the warming effect
arising from the reduced albedo of forested drylands.

Our results demonstrate the importance of assessments of climatic warming mitigation plans
including the warming effect arising from the reduced albedo of global dryland forestation.
Accounting for albedo and avoiding foresting drylands where forestation would have a net
warming effect (NESC < 0, Table 1) almost doubles the overall expected effect on climate. In
contrast, forestation actions over negative-NESC areas would risk exacerbating, rather than
ameliorating, global warming. Our analysis does not include additional effects that can further
complicate a climate mitigation assessment of forestation, such as climate change–related
effects on atmospheric temperature, clouds, or the extent of radiative cooling (from upwelling
of long-wave radiation). Such effects influence both productivity and albedo and can move the
aridity of some land areas to values outside the forestation suitability range considered here
(0.2 < AI ≤ 0.65) [e.g., (33)]. A detailed climate change impact analysis is well beyond the scope
of this Report, but for a first approximation, we performed a cross-analysis by superimposing
maps of the expected AI in 2100, considering a BAU scenario [+4°C (33)] over our forestation
map. We found that ~3% of the potential forestation land (~10 Mha) will shift to a drier aridity
value, below our minimum AI threshold of 0.2, by 2100. This analysis indicates that future
climate change has only minor effects on our estimates of the land available for forestation and
does not alter our conclusions.

Here we demonstrate, therefore, that it is critical that forestation opportunities be assessed

with respect to their potential to mitigate climatic warming, and that doing so can greatly
improve the cooling effect of forestation opportunities (both per-hectare and in terms of total
land area used) of forestation opportunities. Forestation efforts, focusing on the limited areas
with the potential for net climatic cooling, could benefit from high-resolution (1-km) maps, such
as those developed in the present study. Overall, we estimate the total contribution toward
offsetting CO2 emissions obtainable from all dryland forestation actions to be limited,
emphasizing the need to reduce emissions rapidly to meet climate targets.
 A2T: Past Warming Events
Human warming is the fastest in history AND past warming caused mass
extinctions.
Howard Lee 14, Geolgiical Socity of London fellow, 6-30-2014, “What does past climate change
tell us about global warming?” Skepitcal Science, https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-
little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time
around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
Climate Myth... Climate's changed before Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and
warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year
cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have
been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we
have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen) Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in
most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When
they were increased,
the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly , the global warming that
resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are
emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate
changes in earth's past. Abrupt vs slow change. Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other
times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the
carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of
years to adjust to those levels. But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's
temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid
greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. Those abrupt global warming events were almost

always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian,
Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea
levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in
most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And
past examples
of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

Past warming events were balanced by sun activity, rock weathering and
volcanic activity—none of which are true now.
John Cook 10, Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication
at George Mason University, 1-6-2010, “Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming
effect of CO2?”, Skeptical Science, https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-
intermediate.htm
Over the Earth's history, there are times where atmospheric CO2 is higher than current levels.
Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those
periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2? No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not
the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that
drive climate. To do this, one study pieced together 490 proxy records to reconstruct CO2 levels
over the last 540 million years (Royer 2006). This period is known as the Phanerozoic eon. Atmospheric CO2 levels
have reached spectacular values in the deep past , possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late
Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further
back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels . The combined net effect from CO2
and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas. Periods of low CO2

coincide with periods of geographically widespread ice (with one notable exception, discussed
below). This leads to the concept of the CO2-ice threshold - the CO2 level required to initiate a
glaciation. When the sun is less active, the CO2-ice threshold is much higher. For example, while
the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is estimated to be 500 ppm, the equivalent
threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) is 3000 ppm. However, until recently, CO2 levels
during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this
time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm.
Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions. Could CO2 levels
have fallen this far? Given the low temporal resolution of the CO2 record, the data was not conclusive. Research
examining strontium
isotopes in the sediment record shed more light on this question (Young 2009). Rock weathering
removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium,
washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record
of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician ,

weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2 . However, this was

balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million
years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high . This caused CO2
levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling . It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of
late Ordovician glaciation. So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into
account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million
years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C
warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were
around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008). If
climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only
driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate
scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best:
"the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to
study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings ."
Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures .
On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.
Warming Turns the Other Impacts
 Turns Trade
Warming will halt global trade
CNN 8 – News source (“Global Warming Could Increase Terrorism, Official Says”, 6/25/2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html?
eref=rss_politics#cnnSTCText)
But it is also likely to result in storm surges that could affect nuclear facilities and oil refineries near coasts, water shortages in the
Southwest and longer summers with more wildfires, the study found. International migration may also help spread disease, Fingar
added, and climate change could put stress on international trade in essential commodities. "The
United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade
and market access to critical raw materials, such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate
change and climate change policies could affect all of these," he warned, "with significant geopolitical
consequences."

Global warming decimates international trade

Leal-Arcas 13 – Reader in Law at Queen Mary University of London, former visiting lecturer at
Georgetown University Law Center, author (Rafael, “Climate Change and International Trade”,
2013, Google Books, pgs. 62-63)
Evidently, therefore, climate migration may cause similar impacts on source and host economies . Setting aside
the impacts on source economies, climate migration may impact on host economies in the following ways: on the one hand, multiple
benefits may accrue to host economies, with the influx of labor and perhaps desired skills and expertise, whilst on the other, there
may be disruptions to existing trade flows and links, where, for instance, domestic demand for services is now met
domestically rather than what may have historically been from foreign trading partners. What is more, it is clear that climate change
may disrupt trade flows: for instance, a sudden environmental disaster or even gradual
changes to an ecosystem may
impact the production and processing of agricultural goods, for a variety of reasons including the
198

destruction of crops and the flooding of processing facilities. So far, a clear, albeit general, climate
change vis-à-vis trade link emerges. This might then tangentially engage climate migration in the following way: the
trade flow disruption may render people jobless, thus forcing them to move to host economies better able to meet their
fundamental need to sustenance.199 Again, we witness the problematic nature of causality behind climate migration highlighted by
the above examples where migration is principally economic rather than climatic. What this further highlights is the need for the
international community to deal with this phenomenon in a holistic manner, rather than to compartmentalize it according to
whether it fits within a humanitarian, economic, or environmental policy brief. 200
 Artic War
Arctic warming faster than previously thought

Rebecca Hersher, 8-11, 22, The Arctic is heating up nearly four times faster than the whole
planet, study finds, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/11/1116608415/the-arctic-is-heating-up-
nearly-four-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-earth-study-f

The Arctic is heating up nearly four times faster than the Earth as a whole, according to new research.
The findings are a reminder that the people, plants and animals in polar regions are experiencing rapid, and disastrous, climate
change. Scientists previously estimated that the Arctic is heating up about twice as fast as the globe overall. The new study
finds that is a significant underestimate of recent warming . In the last 43 years, the region has warmed 3.8
times faster than the planet as a whole, the authors find. The study focuses on the period between 1979, when reliable satellite
measurements of global temperatures began, and 2021. "The Arctic is more sensitive to global warming than previously thought,"
says Mika Rantanen of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, who is one of the authors of the study published in the journal
Communications Earth & Environment. There have been hints in recent years that the Arctic is heating up even more quickly than
computer models predicted. Heat waves in the far North have driven wildfires and jaw-dropping ice melt in the circumpolar region
that includes Alaska, Arctic Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Siberia. Sponsor Message "This will probably be a bit of a surprise,
but also kind of extra motivation perhaps," says Richard Davy, a climate scientist at Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing
Center in Norway, who was not involved in the new study. "Things are moving faster than we could have expected from the model
projections." There are many reasons why the Arctic is heating up more quickly than other parts of the Earth. Changes in the amount
of air pollution coming from Europe and natural multi-decade climate variations likely play a role. But human-caused
global
warming is the underlying reason that the Arctic, and the planet as a whole, are heating up.
Loss of sea ice is one of the clearest drivers of Arctic warming. The Arctic Circle is mostly ocean, which used to be frozen for most or
all of the year. But
permanent sea ice is steadily shrinking, and seasonal ice is melting earlier in the
year and re-forming later. That means more open water. But while ice is bright and reflects
heat from the sun, water is darker and absorbs it. That heat helps melt more ice, which means
more water to trap more heat – the loop feeds on itself, accelerating warming in the Arctic.
NASA YouTube "That's why the temperature trends are the highest [in] those areas where the sea ice has declined most," explains
Rantanen. There are hotspots in the Bering Sea over Northern Europe and Siberia, which are heating up about seven times faster
than the global average, the study estimates. Rapid Arctic warming affects people living far from the Arctic circle. For example, there
is evidence that weather patterns are shifting across the U.S. and Europe as sea ice melts, and many marine species migrate
between the tropics and the Arctic each year. "What happens in the Arctic doesn't just stay in the Arctic," says Davy. The new
research also finds that the advanced computer models that scientists use to understand how the global climate is changing now,
and will change in the future, struggle to capture the relative speed of Arctic warming. That suggests that future models may need to
be adjusted to better capture the realities of global warming in polar regions, although this study did not tease apart what exactly is
missing from current models. "The paper's finding that climate models tend to underestimate the warming ratio [between the Arctic
and the Earth as a whole] is really interesting," says Kyle Armour, a climate scientist at the University of Washington who was not
involved in the new study. Previous studies have found that computer models actually do a good job estimating how much the Arctic
has heated up, but that they tend to overestimate how much hotter the whole planet is, Armour explains. That means the models'
comparison between Arctic warming and overall warming ends up being incorrect. "We have more work to do to figure out the
source of this model bias," says Armour. And that work is increasingly important, because world leaders use climate models to
understand what the future holds and how to avoid even more catastrophic warming.

Climate change causes war over Arctic resources

Macalister 10 – Writer for The Guardian, citing NATO Commander Admiral James Stavridis
(Terry, “Climate change could lead to Arctic conflict, warns senior Nato commander”, 10/10/10,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/11/nato-conflict-arctic-resources)
One of Nato's most senior commanders has warned that global warming and a race for
resources could lead to conflict in the Arctic. The comments, by Admiral James G Stavridis, supreme allied
commander for Europe, come as Nato countries convene on Wednesday for groundbreaking talks on environmental security in the
Arctic Ocean. The discussions, in the format of a "workshop", with joint Russian leadership, are an attempt to
create dialogue with Moscow aimed at averting a second cold war. "For now, the disputes in the
north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter the equilibrium over the
coming years in the race of temptation for exploitation of more readily accessible natural
resources," said Stavridis. The US naval admiral believes military forces have an important role to play in the area – but mainly
for specialist assistance around commercial and other interests. "The cascading interests and broad implications
stemming from the effects of climate change should cause today's global leaders to take stock,
and unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of co-operation – rather than proceed
down the icy slope towards a zone of competition, or worse a zone of conflict," he added. Stavridis
made his views known in a foreword to a Whitehall paper, entitled Environmental security in the Arctic Ocean: promoting co-
operation and preventing conflict, written by Prof Paul Berkman, head of the Arctic Ocean geopolitics programme at the University
of Cambridge. The
discussions, which take place at the Scott Polar Institute where Berkman is based, have been given
impetus by the speed of change around the north pole where the ice cap is melting and oil and
other minerals are becoming available for extraction. In recent weeks, Cairn Energy has announced the first oil
and gas discoveries off Greenland and a wave of new mining licences are about to be awarded there. There are similar moves to
produce gas in the far north of Russia and Norway, all in the shadow of BP's Gulf of Mexico's oil spill. Vladimir Putin, the Russian
prime minister, spoke about our "common responsibility" at the international forum on the Arctic in Moscow two weeks ago. He is
aware the melting ice offers access to reserves of oil and minerals, as well as new shipping lanes, but that the Arctic is an "area for
co-operation and dialogue". Berkman, a key figure in organising the workshop, with funding from the Nato science for peace and
security programme, said the challenge is to balance national and common interests in the Arctic Ocean in the interests of all
humankind. "Strategiclong-range ballistic missiles or other such military assets for national
security purposes in the Arctic Ocean are no less dangerous today than they were during the
cold war. In effect, the cold war never ended in the Arctic Ocean ." One of the first speakers at
the workshop will be Prof Alexander Vylegzhanin, who is codirecting the workshop from the
Russian Academy of Sciences. He will be followed by former US ambassador Kenneth Yalowitz; European Parliament vice-
president, Diana Wallis; and Canadian high commissioner, James Wright. There will also be contributions from senior British, Danish,
Finnish, Icelandic and Norwegian delegates with participants from 16 nations. Building on the interdisciplinary discussions with
academics, government administrators, politicians, and industry representatives, Berkman said the workshop should be a major first
step towards building a dialogue that both considers strategies to promote co-operation as well as prevent conflict in the Arctic
Ocean. As Stavridis noted: "Melting
of the polar ice cap is a global concern because it has the potential
to alter the geopolitical balance in the Arctic heretofore frozen in time."

Warming shifts methods of trade through the Arctic – jacks the economy and
causes Arctic conflict
Zaffos 12 – Staff Writer for the Daily Climate, citing Bob Correll, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at American
Meteorological Society, Lead Researcher with the Global Environment & Technology Foundation
(Joshua, April 2, 2012, Scientific American, “The New Geopolitics of Global Warming,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-new-geopolitics-of-global-warming)
Melting sea ice poses several unprecedented challenges to defense missions and the global
economy, especially once year-round ice floes disappear - a scenario expected within decades. "When that
happens, the whole ball game changes," said Bob Corell, a lead researcher with the Global Environment & Technology Foundation
who has headed the U.S. Office for the Global Energy Assessment and extensively studied the Arctic region. Corell said Asian
countries, including China and South Korea, are already plotting new navigation routes and
building cargo ships that can push through seasonal ice. The shift would eliminate some travel that now
passes through the Straits of Malacca, between Malaysia and Indonesia, where piracy remains active, but it could also enable
Asia to take firm control of global trade. The U.S. Navy is working on developing instruments that can
withstand the harsh weather conditions, and planners anticipate an increased presence in the
high Arctic.
Warming makes Arctic conflict inevitable
Epiney 7 – Professor of International Law, European Law, and Swiss Public Law and Director of
the Institute for European Law at Université de Fribourg (Astrid, “Climate Changes as a Security
Risk”, May, 2007, http://www.wbgu .de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf)
Political and economic situation in the region The largest land areas of the Arctic extend over northern Scandinavia, Russia, the US
state of Alaska, Canada, the larger islands such as Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya and the numerous islands of
the Canadian archipelago. Politically the Arctic is divided into a number of sectors to which Russia, the USA, Norway and Denmark
lay claim. Some four million people live in the region. Around 10 per cent of these are members of indigenous ethnic groups; in some
parts of the region – such as in parts of the Canadian and Greenlandic Arctic – this proportion rises to more than 50 per cent (ACIA,
2005). Overall, the region is very thinly populated. In the Arctic regions of Alaska, Canada and Greenland there are only a few large
settlements, although in Scandinavia and Russia there are several bigger cities, such as Murmansk and Norilsk in Russia and Tromsø
in Norway. The Icelandic capital of Reykjavík is also an important urban centre for the region. The Human Development Index (HDI)
of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) classes all the countries of the region – with the exception of Russia – as
highly developed (UNDP, 2006). In the Arctic land areas there are development deficits and in some cases governance problems
associated with one-sided economies that focus on resource extraction, but overall the political situation in the region is stable. The
most important economic activities in the region are fishing and the extraction of minerals. The Arctic has extensive deposits of
important resources; those that are extracted include oil and gas, iron ore, nickel, zinc, coal, uranium, tin, diamonds, gold and
cryolite. The thawing of permafrost soils has a considerable impact on the structure of settlements, their supply and waste
management, and on the mining and transport sectors. Transport becomes increasingly difficult on the softer ground. Thus in Alaska
the number of days on which driving on the tundra is allowed has fallen in the last 30 years from 200 to 100 (ACIA, 2005). Coastal
industrial facilities such as harbours – which are crucial for the export of minerals – are increasingly endangered by coastal erosion.
climate change also
Economic activities could therefore be increasingly restricted as a result of climate change. However,
presents the region with opportunities. If the polar ice continues to retreat, the extraction of natural
resources will become easier and new shipping routes will become viable . The possibility of expanding or
improving areas of land used for agriculture is also often discussed, although limits are imposed by the poor quality of the soil,
precipitation trends, inadequate infrastructure, the small scale of the local market and the large distances to potential larger
markets (ACIA, 2005). New opportunities can, however, turn out to be potential sources of conflict. For
example, increased access for shipping brings with it the threat of ecological problems, such as the
increased risk of tanker accidents. Because of the slow rate at which oil slicks break down in the Arctic, such accidents cause
relatively greater damage here than they do elsewhere. Experts also warn of new social and security risks arising
from potential conflicts over newly accessible minerals (Herrmann, 2006). The disputes between
Russia and Norway over the Barents Sea, which date back to Soviet times, demonstrate that the risk of
resource conflicts is real (du Castel, 2005). The population of the region is therefore affected by climate impacts in many
ways. This is particularly true of the indigenous population. By no means the least important aspect for them is the fact that hunting
in traditional ways becomes more difficult on account of the melting of the sea ice cover, changes in the animal populations, and
increased weather variability. This has a serious impact on the cultural identity of the indigenous peoples who live there (Bangert et
al., 2006).
 Blackouts

Climate change causes blackouts

Anna Garrison, July 14, 2022, Green Matters, Climate Change and Power Blackouts Are Related
— Here's What You Need to Know, https://www.greenmatters.com/weather-and-global-
warming/blackouts-climate-change
Perhaps you are already familiar with the ways climate change is creating extreme weather conditions and supply chain shortages,
but did you know that power blackouts are related to climate change as well? Here's what you need to know about climate change,
blackouts, and how we can work to prevent more blackouts in the future. How are blackouts related to climate change? According
to a Department of Energy report on electrical grid reliability ,
90 percent of power outages in the U.S. are due
to failures in electrical distribution systems, typically due to weather damage to poles or
wires. The most common way that electrical poles or wires are downed is due to extreme
weather events, such as heat waves, blizzards, thunderstorms, and hurricanes . The growing
number of extreme weather events due to climate change only further jeopardizes the current
electrical systems in place. The Department of Energy says these extreme weather events have been "principal
contributors" to blackouts. According to Climate Nexus, power grid issues dating back to 2011 show that fossil fuels, which
frequently run power grids, are not immune to extreme weather. To no one's surprise, fossil fuels are also part of the issue. A 2018
National Climate Assessment report suggests that "Flooding from heavy rainfall, storm surge, and rising high tides is expected to
compound existing issues with aging infrastructure in the Northeast. Increased drought risk will threaten oil and gas drilling and
refining, as well as electricity generation from power plants that rely on surface water for cooling." The fossil fuel industry has
started to spread misinformation related to power blackouts, insisting that failed renewable energy resources are the cause.
However, this has been proven not to be the case, especially in events such as the Texas power grid failure in 2021 and rolling
blackouts in California in 2020. How do we stop blackouts caused by climate change? The best way to stop blackouts
from becoming more frequent is to take climate action . A 2021 report by Dartmouth Engineering suggests that
renewable energy sources actually boost the resilience of power grids, also indicating it is possible to create power grids without the
use of fossil fuels. Investing in renewable energy to support power grids and prevent blackout damage has already been realized in
several states. For example, in February 2021, VICE reported that an investigation by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
discovered that "every energy source powering Texas’ grid, with the exception of solar power, underperformed compared to the
capacity ERCOT expected it to be able to handle." In short, relying more on solar power could lessen the damage if Texas' power grid
fails again. Another
report from Utility Dive in 2021 suggested that, following the 2020 blackouts
in California, the state's energy authorities invested more heavily in renewable energy
projects such as solar power to combat blackouts. NBC News also reported that nationally, the number of
households purchasing solar panels and solar batteries was growing steadily due to the reliability of solar power during blackouts.
 Biodiversity

Climate change the leading driver of biodiversity loss

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

While climate change is already having a far-reaching impact on biodiversity, this effect is
expected to become far larger as temperatures continue to rise. Research published in 2018 estimated that climate
change will overtake human land use to become the greatest pressure on biodiversity by 2070 .
According to the IPCC, it is likely that the proportion of all species at very high risk of extinction (categorised as “critically
endangered” by the IUCN Red List) will reach 9% (maximum 14%) at 1.5C, 10% (18%) at 2C, 12% (29%) at 3C, 13% (39%) at 4C and
15% (48%) at 5C, the report says. The large uncertainty in the proportion of species facing extinction at different levels of warming
reflects the fact that scientists are only just beginning to understand the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, says Dr Alex
Pigot, a research fellow at UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research. He tells Carbon Brief: “Overexploitation, hunting
and land-use change have been happening for millennia. There’s no doubt that those are the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss
currently. And they will continue to be major problems unless we have policy that is properly implemented to curb those. “The
thing about climate change is we’re really only just starting to see the impacts emerging. The
question is now, as we add another one or two degrees of warming, how do we expect losses or risks to biodiversity to increase
from climate change? Are we just going to see a steady linear increase? Or are we going to see tipping points where, beyond a
certain level of warming, we start to see this rapid escalation of risk?” Inaddition to driving species extinction,
future climate change risks causing abrupt changes to entire ecosystems, says Pigot – noting that this is
already occurring in some habitats, such as the Great Barrier Reef. He tells Carbon Brief: “ What’s really scary is how
quickly climate change can drive these systems into different states. That’s not something that’s going to
be captured well by looking at extinction risk assessments now, partly because these are only one aspect of the problem. But also, I
think we just don’t have a very good handle on the kind of the different limits that species and ecosystems might have and how
quickly we can potentially exceed this.” Research published by Pigot in 2020 projected that, under a very high emissions scenario,
tropical ocean ecosystems could be exposed to potentially catastrophic temperature rise by
2030, with tropical forests facing the same by 2050. By comparison, taking action this decade in order to limit
global warming to below 2C by 2100 could delay the date of exposure by up to six decades, according to the research.

Climate change destroys Africa’s biodiversity

Sustainable Planet, July 12, 2022, Climate change: A threat to Africa’s biodiversity,
https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/climate-change-threat-to-africas-biodiversity/
23024/

A research team, including PhD student Carola Martens, from Senckenberg and South Africa’s
Stellenbosch University, has investigated how climate change could pose a threat to Africa’s
biodiversity. In this study, scientists demonstrate where these environmental impacts may
coincide with population growth and land-use changes. According to their simulations,
biodiversity in almost all protected areas will be threatened by at least one of these factors by
the end of the 21st century. This study was recently published in the journal Conservation
Biology. The importance of protecting Africa’s biodiversity African elephants, white rhinoceros,
leopards, Cape buffalos, and lions – also known as the ‘big five’ – are symbolic of Africa’s unique
wildlife. “Africa’s protected areas harbour far greater biodiversity than just these five iconic
animals. They are the last strongholds of the continent’s unique biodiversity,” explained Carola
Martens, from Senckenberg’s Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre and Goethe University,
Frankfurt. “However, this diversity is threatened by climate change, population growth, and
future land-use changes.” Martens and her colleagues Professor Dr Thomas Hickler from
Senckenberg’s Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Dr Simon Scheiter SBiK-F, and
Professor Dr Guy F. Midgley from Stellenbosch University have studied the threat to Africa’s
biodiversity, including future impacts of climate change in Africa’s protected areas,
incorporating population density and land utilisation, for two scenarios up to the end of the 21st
century. Their modelling study intends to demonstrate where the three factors will be
important in the coming decades and where they may interact, which researchers expect will
support meaningful conservation planning. “Climate change is increasingly threatening
biodiversity as vegetation zones and habitats change for many species. In addition, the
growing world population combined with globally rising living standards requires more and
more land for food production, to meet the rising demand for meat, and for bioenergy. We
can only halt biodiversity loss if we understand the interactions between climate change,
population growth, and land use,” noted Martens. The simulations were conducted utilising the
adaptive dynamic global vegetation model (ADGVM) for two scenarios: The ‘middle-of-the-road’
scenario, where in which current societal developments continue and some climate change
mitigation measures are adopted, and the ‘fossil-fuelled development’ scenario. In the latter
scenario, social and economic development is based on the increased exploitation of fossil fuel
resources with a high coal content and an energy-intensive lifestyle worldwide. Additionally, the
researchers analysed global scenarios for the development of the human population and of land
utilisation. “The results demonstrate that in both scenarios, tree cover generally increases in
today’s grasslands and savannas in Africa. For protected areas in West Africa, our analyses
revealed climate-induced vegetation change combined with high future population and land-use
pressures,” said Martens. “Only for North Africa, we expect that a large share of protected areas
to be without vegetation changes in combination with decreased pressure from population and
land use – generally, the pressure on protected areas is therefore increasing.” According to the
study, the ‘fossil-fuelled development’ scenario resulted in greater climate-induced changes in
tree cover and higher land-use pressure at the continental scale, while the ‘middle-of-the-road’
scenario was characterised by higher future population pressure.

Rapid biodiversity decline causes extinction – triggers global environmental

collapse and exacerbates threats.
Torres ’16 (Phil; 4/11/16; Founder of the X-Risks Institute, an affiliate scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging
Technologies; The Bulletin, “Biodiversity loss: An existential risk comparable to climate change," thebulletin.org/biodiversity-loss-
existential-risk-comparable-climate-change9329)

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change
and nuclear weapons. Both pose clear and present dangers to the perpetuation of our species, and the increasingly dire climate
situation and nuclear arsenal modernizations in the United States and Russia were the most significant reasons why the Bulletin
decided to keep the Doomsday Clock set at three minutes before midnight earlier this year. But there is another existential
threat that the Bulletin overlooked in its Doomsday Clock announcement: biodiversity loss. This phenomenon is often
identified as one of the many consequences of climate change, and this is of course correct. But biodiversity loss is also a
contributing factor behind climate change. For example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and elsewhere
reduces the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by plants, a natural process that
mitigates the effects of climate change. So the causal relation between climate change and biodiversity loss
is bidirectional. Furthermore, there are myriad phenomena that are driving biodiversity loss in addition to climate change.
Other causes include ecosystem fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, oxygen depletion caused by fertilizers running off into
ponds and streams, overfishing, human overpopulation, and overconsumption. All of these phenomena have a direct impact on the
health of the biosphere, and all would conceivably persist even if the problem of climate change were somehow immediately solved.
Such considerations warrant decoupling biodiversity loss from climate change, because the former has been consistently subsumed
by the latter as a mere effect. Biodiversity loss is a distinct environmental crisis with its own unique
syndrome of causes, consequences, and solutions—such as restoring habitats, creating protected areas
(“biodiversity parks”), and practicing sustainable agriculture. The sixth extinction. The repercussions of
biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a
nuclear conflict. For example, according to a 2015 study published in Science Advances, the best available evidence
reveals “an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries , indicating that a sixth
mass extinction is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the
background rate of species losses and the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures with a backbone. The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the
average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other
scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as 10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors
write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in
Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction to the previous “Big
Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more than just
the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this
phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an
alarming rate. For example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the
tropics dropped by 59 percent between 1970 and 2006. The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has
dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968
and 2003; and the population of birds in North American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42
percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population
declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some
20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50 percent of freshwater turtles are threatened.
Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in danger of dying. Consistent with these
data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52 percent in only four decades
—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the complexity of ecological
systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens, a 2006 study
published in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that,
unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048.
Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The
consequences of this rapid pruning of the evolutionary tree of life
extend beyond the obvious. There could
be surprising effects of biodiversity loss that scientists are unable
to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has shown that localized ecosystems can undergo
abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping point. According to a 2012 paper published in Nature,
there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort in the global ecosystem, beyond which the
consequences could be catastrophic for civilization. As the authors write, a
planetary-scale transition could
precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.”
An ecosystem service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production
and crop pollination. If the global ecosystem were to cross a tipping point and substantial
ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread social unrest, economic
instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s
co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades—far more quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change,
yet equally destructive. Biodiversity
loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink
of collapse, will exacerbate existing conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state
and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the
emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA director
John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.) The reality is that we are entering the sixth mass
extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt by civilization “in as little as three
human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of biological populations
could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single human
lifetime. The
unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its
own right. As such, it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as
one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity and survival.

Biodiversity key to human survival

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

The loss of biodiversity across the world is also having a major impact on people. While many
people associate the term “biodiversity” with iconic species and tropical forests, it actually
covers much more than this, explains Dr Nathalie Pettorelli, a senior research fellow at the
Zoological Society of London’s Institute of Zoology. She tells Carbon Brief: “Biodiversity is
everything that defines our living world. It’s not only species – it’s ecosystems, it’s habitats,
it’s the genetic make-up of individuals. It’s how communities assemble to be something bigger
than the sum of their parts.” The variety of living things found on Earth is crucial to human
survival, explains Dr Charlie Outhwaite, a postdoctoral research associate at the Centre for
Biodiversity and Environment Research at University College London. She tells Carbon Brief: “It’s
not just nice to have biodiversity on the planet, it also provides a lot of important things.
Thinking about the food system, biodiversity is important for the pollination of crops, for
maintaining nutrients in the soil and for maintaining water quality that we need to water
crops. If we lose biodiversity, we lose a lot of the stuff we rely on as people.”

Biodiversity loss destroys the economy

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

This biodiversity loss has consequences for people. An estimated $44tn – roughly half the
world’s annual economic output – is currently being put at risk by the depletion of natural
resources, according to the UNCCD. The loss of pollinator species specifically threatens global
crops worth $577bn, IPBES says.

Biodiversity loss destroys indigenous people

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/
In addition, marginalised groups today play a disproportionate role in protecting the world’s
biodiversity. For example, Indigenous peoples represent around 6% of the global population,
yet act as stewards over 40% of intact ecosystems and protected areas.

Climate-induced biodiversity loss is causing species migration and new zoontic

diseases

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

The IPCC’s most recent assessment of the impacts of climate change concluded that warming
has already caused “substantial damages and increasing irreversible losses to land ecosystems
across every region of the world”. Hayhoe tells Carbon Brief: “The climate is changing faster now
than any time in the history of humans on this planet. And it’s changing faster than all plant and
animal species that currently exist have ever experienced as well. So climate change is a threat
multiplier for biodiversity.” As temperatures increase and rainfall changes, some species are
being forced to seek out new areas with climate conditions they are able to tolerate. (Species
that are not able to move could face extinction.) A scientific review of 40,000 species across the
world published in 2008 found that around half are already on the move as a result of changing
climate conditions. In general, species are seeking cooler temperatures by moving towards
Earth’s poles. Land animals are moving polewards at an average rate of 10 miles per decade,
whereas marine species are moving at a rate of 45 miles per decade, according to the review.
This global movement of species in response to warming will have far-reaching consequences
for ecosystems, explains Prof Hans-Otto Poertner, head of biosciences at the Alfred Wegener
Institute (AWI) and co-chair of the IPCC’s climate impacts assessment. He tells Carbon Brief: “It’s
habitat modification – by the warming climate making species move to higher altitudes, higher
latitudes or deeper waters. This does not happen to the same extent for all species. So we’re
getting new ecosystems. The projection is that this leads to a decline in species numbers,
abundance and overall biomass.” The reshuffling of ecosystems could be creating new risks,
including increased opportunities for animals to spread their viruses, according to recent
research. Increased virus sharing between animals could in turn boost the chances of a
“zoonotic spillover” – the passing of harmful pathogens from animals to humans.
 China

Warming turns everything related to China

Wilson VornDick 15, Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy Previously Assigned to the Chinese
Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College, “Why Climate Change Could be China’s
Biggest Security Threat”, The Diplomat, 8/14/2015, https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/why-
climate-change-could-be-chinas-biggest-security-threat/
In preparation for the UN’s Climate Change Conference in Paris this November, the globe’s two largest emitters, China and the
United States, have been pledging various actions to steer the world away from climate change-induced peril. Last year, U.S.
President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their commitment to take-on climate change. In May, President
Obama reiterated that it was a national security imperative to “combat and adapt to climate change” while addressing the U.S.
Coast Guard’s graduating cadets. His remarks echo Department of Defense (DoD) analysts’ assessment that climate change is
indeed a “threat multiplier” and a “global problem.” These remarks were central to DoD’s first climate change
strategy, the Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, released in 2014.

For Chinese authorities, however, no official pronouncement or linkage has been made between climate change and China’s national
security that is on par with DoD’s threat assessment. But the Ministry of Defense and PLA should make this a top priority because
China’s long-term security and sovereignty are at stake.
Climate Change in Chinese Security Governance

China first acknowledged climate change in its Initial National Communication on Climate Change in 2004. In the decade since, China has made significant strides in addressing
climate change from issuing a Second National Communication on Climate Change in 2008, providing data and scientists to the United Nations International Panel on Climate
Change, and incorporating and implementing various climate change initiatives throughout the country. Chinese security planners took a cue from the government’s lead and
referenced climate change in the 2008 white paper, China’s National Defense.

The reference to climate change in the 2008 white paper is particularly noteworthy because the severe blizzards in southern China that January prompted military officials to
respond. First, security planners included natural disasters as a national security threat and initiated natural disaster response as part of the PLA’s tasks. Second, the PLA set up a
military committee to assess the impacts from climate change to China’s military and national security.

Climate change appeared again two years later in the 2010 white paper. However, the most recent white paper, 2015 China’s Military Strategy, does not mention climate change
and it can be surmised from the white paper that climate change is now classified as a “non-traditional” security issue. But if climate change predictions are right, this “non-
traditional” threat may be more menacing and lethal than China’s “traditional” threats.

Climate Change Impacts on Chinese National Security

Zheng Haibin, a professor at Peking University and a leading researcher on climate change securitization in China, believes
China should do more because its security is at stake. His research indicates that climate change-induced impacts will endanger
China’s national defense, strategic projects, and critical, defense-related infrastructure. Zheng’s identified several security
vulnerabilities in each of China’s biomes and varied environments:

Desertification in the dry north and west will stretch already thin water supplies and wilt the ambitious and
decades-old Three-North Shelter Forest Program (三北防护林) or “Green Great Wall.” As temperatures increase in the
west, thawing permafrost will buckle hundreds of miles of the newly constructed, multi-billion dollar Qinghai-
Tibet Railway jeopardizing the safety and the continuity of this strategic link to Tibet.

The increasing frequency of extreme weather conditions, such as flooding, drought, and cyclones, will
degrade or compromise a variety of critical and security-related infrastructure across China. Heavy
rainfall in the mountainous areas could trigger mudslides and landslides that would render useless
numerous fixed missile launch sites utilized by the Second Artillery Corps (第二炮兵部队), China’s strategic missile
force. Large swings in water levels and river runoff could substantially reduce the effectiveness of
Three Gorges Dam, while farming capacity could fall 5 to 10% by 2030. The uptick in cyclone activity
over the last decade along the Chinese coastline has caused extensive damage, restricted PLA training, and
degraded combat effectiveness. Even the new Chinese-Russian oil pipelines stretching across China’s vast interior could
be in jeopardy from extreme weather patterns.

With more than 11,185 miles of coastline, 6,700 islands, and China’s largest economic and population centers in littoral and
maritime areas, climate change-induced sea-level
rise may be China’s principal threat. Specifically, sea-level rise
will cause significant coastline retreat, large-scale ecological damage, salinization of
freshwater sources, and reset maritime boundaries. This will directly impact strategic energy
corridors, maritime rights, and fisheries.
In response, Zheng proposed a holistic approach for climate change securitization in 2009 to include forming a national leading
group to address climate change and strengthening coordination between the army, national security agencies, and local decision-
making bodies.

A few Chinese military analysts share Zheng’s concerns and sounded the alarm on climate change in a 2011 study. Internally, the
study determined that climate
change will exacerbate current Chinese socioeconomic issues by
lowering China’s quality of life, stretching limited resources, and increasing internal
migrations. Externally, the study found climate change will increase geopolitical pressure and
regional instability with China’s neighbors. It

Climate change destroying agricultural production in China

Bloomberg, March 22, 2022, China Faces Worst Crop Conditions Ever Due to Climate Change,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/climate-change-threatens-china-s-
crop-yield-food-security

More extreme weather caused by rising global temperatures — compounded by geopolitical

turmoil and the pandemic — is hindering China’s effort to ensure food supplies for its 1.4
billion population.

President Xi Jinping has made food security a priority for the world’s second-biggest economy,
an effort to meet the soaring demand that’s pushed imports of corn, soybeans and wheat to
record levels, making Beijing increasingly vulnerable to trade tensions and supply shocks. At the
same time, climate change-induced disasters have caused widespread crop damage and
shrunk the amount of arable land, making it harder to boost local production.

Tang Renjian, the country’s agriculture minister, brought up the threat at a high-profile
government meeting in Beijing this month. “China faces big difficulties in food production
because of the unusual floods last autumn,” he told reporters. “Many faming experts and
technicians told us that crop conditions this year could be the worst in history.”.

More than 860 people died or went missing in natural disasters last year, which damaged almost
30 million acres of crops. Record-breaking rains in the central province of Henan in July alone
damaged 2.1 million acres of farmland. The floods delayed planting on more than 18 million
acres of land, about one-third of China’s total winter wheat acreage. The amount of first- and
second-grade crops, where there are more than 2.7 million seedlings on every acre of land, fell
by more than 20% this year compared with normal years.
Climate change hurts China’s pursuit of food security in two ways, according to Zhang Zhaoxin, a
researcher with the agricultural ministry. More frequent extreme weather events are already
lowering crop yields. Meanwhile, increasingly unpredictable seasons can undermine farmers’
confidence and potentially worsen the sector’s existing labor shortage.

. In many of the regions that were affected by torrential rain last year, farmers couldn’t harvest
their corn because their machinery couldn’t handle the water. There wasn’t enough
infrastructure such as pipes and systems to drain the field in time.

Those issues are set to get more serious as the planet warms. . In the longer term, climate
change also means rising coastal waters along the long and low eastern coast could further
stress the agricultural industry.

“As climate change continues to intensify in coming years, weather events are going to have a
greater and greater impact on agricultural productivity,” said Even Pay, an agricultural analyst
with Trivium. Ramping up imports isn’t a viable alternative, she added, pointing out that global
warming makes food cultivation more challenging globally. “Climate change felt in the rest of
the world could also impact China’s food security,” she said.
 CCP Instability
Warming causes CCP instability
IPS 7 – Inter Press News Service (“Global Warming Fuels Inflation”, 9/5/07,
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39144)
Yet government officials now fear that the combined effects of climate change and inflation pressures could
destabilise public mood ahead of the 17th Communist Party Congress -- a five-yearly meeting, designed to
chart the party’s policy and seal the legacy of its current leaders. Drought is already affecting 22 of China’s 31
provinces. Meteorological experts say that global warming would exacerbate things as a one-degree rise in
temperature could aggravate ground water evaporation by seven percent. Zheng Guogan, head of the State Meteorological
Administration forecasts global warming will cut China’s annual grain harvest by up to 10 percent. That would mean
about 50 million tonnes less grain in the current tight supply situation and a potential for further inflation. "Given the tightened food
supply in the international market, a decline in domestic grain production could lead to more price hikes," Song
Tingmin, vice-president of the China National Association of Grain told the China Daily. A surge in food prices saw China’s consumer
price index (CPI) rise to a 10-year high of 5.6 percent in July, far above the government’s upper target of 3 percent for the whole
year. Economists say the August inflation rose even higher on the back of soaring pork costs. The
social dimensions of
such leaps in inflation are not lost on a government, which remembers that 1989 pro-democracy
movement that saw thousands of students, workers and intellectuals out in street protests was triggered
by public anger over inflation.
 China-Russia War
Global warming makes Sino-Russia nuclear conflict inevitable
Holthaus 4/18/14– writer for Slate, citing retired Navy Rear Admiral David Titley (Eric ““Climate
Change War” Is Not a Metaphor”, 4/18/14,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/david_titley_climate_change
_war_an_interview_with_the_retired_rear_admiral.html)
Titley: There will be a discrete event or series of events that will change the calculus. I don’t know who, I don’t know how
violent. To quote Niels Bohr: Predictions are tough, especially about the future. When it comes, that will be a black swan. The
question is then, do we change? Let me give you a few examples of how that might play out. You
could imagine a scenario
in which both Russia and China have prolonged droughts. China decides to exert rights on
foreign contracts and gets assertive in Africa. If you start getting instability in large powers
with nuclear weapons, that’s not a good day. Here’s another one: We basically do nothing on
emissions. Sea level keeps rising, three to six feet by the end of the century. Then, you get a
series of super-typhoons into Shanghai and millions of people die. Does the population there
lose faith in Chinese government? Does China start to fissure? I’d prefer to deal with a rising, dominant China
any day.
 Disease

Climate Change triggers massive disease spread

Mora, 8-8, 22, Camilo Mora, Tristan McKenzie, Isabella M. Gaw, Jacqueline M. Dean, Hannah
von Hammerstein, Tabatha A. Knudson, Renee O. Setter, Charlotte Z. Smith, Kira M. Webster,
Jonathan A. Patz & Erik C. Franklin, Department of Geography and Environment, University of
Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Nature Climate Change, Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can
be aggravated by climate change, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01426-1

Abstract It is relatively well accepted that climate change can affect human pathogenic diseases;
however, the full extent of this risk remains poorly quantified. Here we carried out a systematic
search for empirical examples about the impacts of ten climatic hazards sensitive to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions on each known human pathogenic disease. We found that 58% (that is, 218
out of 375) of infectious diseases confronted by humanity worldwide have been at some point
aggravated by climatic hazards; 16% were at times diminished. Empirical cases revealed 1,006
unique pathways in which climatic hazards, via different transmission types, led to pathogenic
diseases. The human pathogenic diseases and transmission pathways aggravated by climatic
hazards are too numerous for comprehensive societal adaptations, highlighting the urgent
need to work at the source of the problem: reducing GHG emissions. Main The ongoing emission
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is intensifying numerous climatic hazards of the Earth’s climate
system, which in turn can exacerbate human pathogenic diseases1. The societal disruption
caused by pathogenic diseases, as clearly revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, provides
worrisome glimpses into the potential consequences of looming health crises driven by climate
change2,3,4,5,6. While the conclusion that climate change can affect pathogenic diseases is
relatively well accepted2,3,4,5,6, the extent of human vulnerability to pathogenic diseases
affected by climate change is not yet fully quantified. On one hand, it is increasingly recognized
that the emission of GHGs has consequences on a multitude of climatic hazards of the Earth’s
system (for example, warming, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, extreme precipitation, floods,
sea level rise and so on; Fig. 1)4,7. On the other hand, there is a broad taxonomic diversity of
human pathogenic diseases (for example, bacteria, viruses, animals, plants, fungi, protozoa and
so on), and transmission types (for example, vector-borne, airborne, direct contact and so on;
glossary in Text Box 1) that can be affected by those hazards. The combination of numerous
climatic hazards by the numerous pathogens reveals the potentially large number of
interactions in which climatic hazards could aggravate human pathogenic diseases; with the set
of ‘viable’ interactions, or interactions for which empirical data exists, approximating the full
extent of human vulnerability to climate change as it relates to pathogenic diseases. Yet, with
few exceptions2,8, past studies about the impact of climatic hazards on human pathogenic
diseases have commonly focused on specific groups of pathogens (for example, bacteria9,
viruses10), hazards (for example, warming11, precipitation12, floods13) or transmission types
(for example, vector-14,15, food-16, waterborne16,17). This failure to integrate available
information prevents the quantification of the full threat to humanity posed by climate change
as it relates to pathogenic diseases. In this paper, we attempt to fill this gap by applying a
systematic approach to screen the literature for the set of interactions in which climatic hazards
have been linked to human pathogenic diseases. We considered the following ten climate
hazards. GHGs mediate the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared
radiation; thus, (1) their excess in the atmosphere causes warming. Compounded with an
increased capacity of the air to hold water, warming accelerates soil water evaporation,
leading to (2) drought in places that are commonly dry; excess drought can lead to (3)
heatwaves when heat transfer from water evaporation ceases. Drought and heatwaves ripen
the conditions for (4) wildfires. In moist places, the quick replenishment of evaporation
strengthens (5) precipitation, which is prone to cause (6) floods as rain falls on moist
places/saturated soils. Warming of the oceans enhances evaporation and wind speeds,
intensifying downpours and the strength of (7) storms, whose surges can be aggravated by (8)
sea level rise, which in turn can aggravate the impacts of floods. Uptake of CO2 in the oceans
causes ocean acidification, whereas changes in ocean circulation and warming reduces oxygen
concentration in seawater; these combined ocean physical–chemical changes are referred to as
(9) ocean climate change in this paper. We included (10) changes in natural land cover as one of
the hazards because it can be a direct emitter of GHGs via deforestation and respiration, modify
temperature via albedo and evapotranspiration and because it can be a direct modifier in the
transmission of pathogenic diseases59,84. This figure is intended as a justification for the
hazards used and not as a full array of interactions between GHGs and hazards and feedback
loops among hazards. …We found 3,213 empirical case examples in which climatic hazards were
implicated in pathogenic diseases. All empirical case examples were related to 286 unique
pathogenic diseases (Supplementary Table 1), of which 277 were aggravated (glossary in Text
Box 1) by at least one climatic hazard (Fig. 3). Although 63 diseases were diminished (glossary in
Text Box 1) by some climatic hazards, 54 of them were at times also aggravated by other climatic
hazards; only nine pathogenic diseases were exclusively diminished by climatic hazards (Fig. 4a
and Supplementary Table 1). Hereafter, we report diseases that were aggravated by climatic
hazards, unless otherwise indicated. The compilation of pathogenic diseases aggravated by
climatic hazards represent 58% of all infectious diseases reported to have impacted humanity
worldwide (that is, out of an authoritative list of 375 infectious diseases documented to have
impacted humanity (Methods), 218 were found to be aggravated by climatic hazards; Fig. 4b and
Supplementary Table 1). We found 1,006 unique pathways in which climatic hazards, via
different transmission types, resulted in cases of pathogenic diseases (an interactive display of
the diseases is available at https://camilo-mora.github.io/Diseases/). Warming (160 unique
diseases), precipitation (122), floods (121), drought (81), storms (71), land cover change (61),
ocean climate change (43), fires (21), heatwaves (20) and sea level (10) were all found to
influence diseases triggered by viruses (76), bacteria (69), animals (45), fungi (24), protozoans
(23), plants (12) and chromists (9). Pathogenic diseases were primarily transmitted by vectors
(103 unique diseases), although case examples were also found for transmission pathways
involving waterborne (78), airborne (60), direct contact (56) and foodborne (50 unique diseases)
(Fig. 3). Among all case examples of pathogenic diseases impacted negatively by climatic
hazards, there were 19 general disease names (for example, gastrointestinal infections) that
lacked information on the causal pathogen (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 1); for 116 diseases,
there was no information provided on the transmission pathway (caveats in Supplementary
Information 1). Pathogenic diseases affected by climatic hazards While numerous biological,
ecological, environmental and social factors contribute to the successful emergence of a human
pathogenic disease23, at the most basic level, it depends on a pathogen and a person coming
into contact, and the extent to which peoples’ resistance is diminished, or the pathogen is
strengthened, by a climatic hazard. We outline empirical case examples to reveal how climatic
hazards can affect these aspects in the emergence of pathogenic diseases. Case examples were
grouped under given subheadings for the purpose of better presenting our results and not as an
attempt to outline a contextual model about the emergence of diseases. We caution that while
empirical cases indicate an effect of climatic hazards on the emergence of pathogenic disease,
their relative contribution was not quantified in this study (caveats in Supplementary
Information 1). The complete list of cases, transmission pathways and associated papers can be
explored in detail at https://camilo-mora.github.io/Diseases/. At this website, users can navigate
an interactive Sankey plot displaying how climatic hazards lead to pathogenic diseases via given
transmission modes and click on any disease named in this paper to see the case example,
citation and a copy of the paper. For the purpose of transparency, the web tool and background
data are public. We also provide a supplement listing the papers from which case examples
were obtained (Supplementary Table 2). Climatic hazards bringing pathogens closer to people
Shifts in the geographical range of species are one of the most common ecological indications of
climate change24. Warming25 and precipitation changes25, for instance, were associated with
range expansion of vectors such as mosquitoes25, ticks26, fleas27, birds28 and several
mammals29 implicated in outbreaks by viruses25, bacteria25, animals25 and protozoans25,
including dengue25, chikungunya25, plague29, Lyme disease25, West Nile virus28, Zika25,
trypanosomiasis30, echinococcosis31 and malaria25 to name a few. Climate-driven expansions
were also observed in aquatic systems, including cases of Vibrio species (for example,
cholera32), anisakiasis33 and envenomizations by jellyfish34. Warming at higher latitudes
allowed vectors and pathogens to survive winter, aggravating outbreaks by several viruses (for
example, Zika, dengue)35. Habitat disruptions caused by warming, drought, heatwaves,
wildfires, storms, floods and land cover change were also associated with bringing pathogens
closer to people. Spillovers from viruses (for example, Nipah virus36 and Ebola37), for instance,
were associated with wildlife (for example, bats38, rodents39 and primates38) moving over
larger areas foraging for limited food resources caused by drought or finding new habitats
following wildfires. Likewise, reductions in snow cover caused by warming forced voles to find
shelter in human inhabitations, triggering hantavirus outbreaks40. Drought also caused the
congregation of mosquitoes and birds around remaining water sources facilitating the
transmission of West Nile virus41. Floods and storms were commonly associated with
wastewater overflow, leading to the direct and foodborne transmission of noroviruses16,
hantavirus42, hepatitis43 and Cryptosporidium44. Warming was also related to melting ice and
thawing permafrost exposing once-frozen pathogens45. For instance, genetic analyses of an
anthrax outbreak in the Arctic circle suggest that the bacterial strain may have been ancient and
emerged from an unearthed animal corpse as the frozen ground thawed46. The successful
emergence of pathogens frozen in time could be regarded as a ‘Pandora’s box’, given the
potentially large pool of pathogens accumulated over time and the extent to which these
pathogens may be new to people45. Climatic hazards bringing people closer to pathogens
Climatic hazards also facilitated the contact between people and pathogens by moving people
closer to pathogens. Heatwaves, for instance, by increasing recreational water-related activities,
have been associated with rising cases of several waterborne diseases such as Vibrio-associated
infections47, primary amoebic meningoencephalitis48 and gastroenteritis49. Storms, floods and
sea level rise caused human displacements implicated in cases of leptospirosis50,
cryptosporidiosis51, Lassa fever52, giardiasis53, gastroenteritis54, Legionnaires’ diseases53,
cholera55, salmonellosis56, shigellosis56, pneumonia57, typhoid58, hepatitis58, respiratory
disease50 and skin diseases50 among others. Land use changes facilitated human encroachment
into wild areas and created new ecotones that brought people into closer proximity to vectors
and pathogens59, leading to numerous disease outbreaks such as Ebola60, scrub typhus61,
Queensland tick typhus61, Lyme disease62, malaria63 and so on. Drought and heavy
precipitation were involved in the movement of livestock to suitable areas, which in turn led to
pathogen exposure and disease outbreaks (for example, anthrax64, haemorrhagic fever29).
Changes in precipitation and temperature were also noted to affect human social gatherings and
the transmissibility of viruses such as influenza65 and COVID-1966. Kappor et al66. suggested
that heavy rainfall could exogenously induce social isolation, helping to explain lower COVID-19
cases after heavy rainfall; however, increased cases of COVID-19 were associated with increases
in precipitation in Indonesia67, perhaps reflecting different behavioural responses to extreme
rain. Higher temperatures have been associated with increased COVID-19 cases in some
instances67, and although a mechanism was not outlined, it is possible that extreme heat forces
people indoors, which can increase the risk of virus transmission, especially when combined
with poor or reduced ventilation; in a related mechanism, increased transmission of
coronaviruses during cool spells may be related to increased social gatherings, among other
factors68. Pathogens strengthened by climatic hazards In addition to facilitating contacts
between people and pathogens, climatic hazards also enhanced specific aspects of pathogens,
including improved climate suitability for reproduction, acceleration of the life cycle,
increasing seasons/length of likely exposure, enhancing pathogen vector interactions (for
example, by shortening incubations) and increased virulence. Warming, for instance, had
positive effects on mosquito population development, survival, biting rates and viral
replication, increasing the transmission efficiency of West Nile virus69. Ocean warming
accelerated the growth of harmful algal blooms and diseases caused by Pseudonitzschia sp70.,
blue–green cyanobacteria70 and dinoflagellates70. Ocean warming and heavy precipitation,
which reduces coastal water salinity, appear to provide fertile conditions for Vibrio
vulnificus32 and Vibrio cholerae71, this being a leading explanation for Vibriosis outbreaks in
areas where this disease is rare72. In other cases, warming and intense precipitation increased
food and habitat resources, which caused surges in rodent populations associated with cases of
plague73 and hantaviruses74. Storms, heavy rainfall and floods created stagnant water,
increasing breeding and growing grounds for mosquitoes and the array of pathogens that they
transmit (for example, leishmaniasis75, malaria75, Rift Valley fever73, yellow fever15, St. Louis
encephalitis54, dengue75 and West Nile fever76). Climatic hazards were also implicated in the
increasing capacity of pathogens to cause more severe illness (that is, virulence). Heat, for
instance, was related to upregulated gene expression of proteins affecting transmission,
adhesion, penetration, survival and host injury by Vibrio spp77,78. Heatwaves were also
suggested as a natural selective pressure towards ‘heat-resistant’ viruses, whose spillover into
human populations results in increased virulence as viruses can better cope with the human
body’s main defence (that is, fever)79,80. Food shortages due to drought were implicated in
reduced bat autoimmune defence, which increased virus shedding, favouring outbreaks by
Hendra virus81,82. People impaired by climatic hazards Climatic hazards have also diminished
human capacity to cope with pathogens by altering body condition; adding stress from
exposure to hazardous conditions; forcing people into unsafe conditions; damaging
infrastructure, forcing exposure to pathogens and/or reducing access to medical care. Body
malnutrition and condition, for instance, affect immunocompetence to disease83. As such, the
broad effects of climatic hazards on land84 and marine85 food supply4,86, and the reduced
concentration of nutrients in crops under high CO287, can directly cause human malnutrition,
helping to explain the increased risk of food-deprived populations to disease outbreaks (for
example, Cryptosporidium88, measles89 and cholera90). Cases of reduced resistance to various
diseases were also found in relation to rapid weather variability known to be aggravated by GHG
emissions65. For instance, failure of the human immune system to adjust to large changes in
temperature was suggested as a likely mechanism to explain outbreaks of influenza65. Likewise,
stress, via changes in cortisol and down-regulation of inflammatory response, can reduce the
body’s capacity to cope with diseases91. Exposure to life-threatening conditions such as floods
and hurricanes, extraneous conditions during heatwaves and depression from lost livelihood
due to drought4 are a few examples in which climatic hazards are inducive to stress and cortisol
variations and a likely mechanism by which climatic hazards reduce the body’s capacity to deal
with pathogens. Climatic hazards also forced people into unsafe situations that facilitated the
risk of disease outbreaks. In some instances, drought, by reducing water availability, forced the
use of unsafe drinking water, causing outbreaks of diarrhoea, cholera and dysentery92. Reduced
water resources were also conducive to poor sanitation responsible for cases of trachoma42,
chlamydia42, cholera93, conjunctivitis42, Cryptosporidium26, diarrhoeal diseases42,
dysentery94, Escherichia coli93, Giardia95, Salmonella93, scabies42 and typhoid fever94.
Climatic hazards also affected the risk of disease by damaging critical infrastructure. For
instance, floods, heavy rain and storms were related to damages in sewage systems and
disrupted potable water involved in outbreaks of cholera96, diarrhoea96, hepatitis A96,
hepatitis E96, leptospirosis96, acanthamoebiasis96, cryptosporidiosis96, cyclosporiasis96,
giardiasis96, rotavirus96, shigellosis96 and typhoid fever96. By reducing access to medical
health, basic supplies or reducing income, these hazards were associated with outbreaks of
gonorrhoea97 and other venereal diseases98. Diseases diminished by climatic hazards Whereas
the great majority of diseases were found to be aggravated by climatic hazards, some were
found to be diminished (63 out of 286 diseases; Fig. 4a). Warming, for instance, appears to have
reduced the spread of viral diseases probably related to unsuitable conditions for the virus or
because of a stronger immune system in warmer conditions (for example, influenza65, SARS99,
COVID-19100, rotaviral and noroviral enteritis101). However, we also found that most diseases
that were diminished by at least one hazard were at times aggravated by another and
sometimes even the same hazard. For instance, in some cases, schistosomiasis infections were
reduced by floods, limiting habitat suitability of the snail host102. However, in other cases,
floods increased human exposure and broadened the dispersal of the host103. Droughts also
reduced the prevalence of malaria and chikungunya via reduction of breeding grounds104, but
in others, drought led to increased mosquito density in reduced water pools74,105. Concluding
remarks The global distress caused by the emergence of COVID-19 clearly revealed the
considerable human vulnerability to pathogenic diseases. Such types of disease have the
capacity to not only cause illness and death in large numbers of people but can also trigger
broader socioeconomic consequences (for example, the cumulative financial costs of the COVID-
19 pandemic could mount to US$16 trillion for the United States alone106). It should be noted
that this was not an isolated event; the burden of diseases such as human immunodeficiency
virus, Zika, malaria, dengue, chikungunya, influenza, Ebola, MERS and SARS cause millions of
deaths each year107 and an inexplicable amount of human suffering. As demonstrated in this
review, 277 human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by the broad array of climatic
hazards triggered by our ongoing emission of GHGs and include 58% of all infectious diseases
known to have impacted humanity in recorded history. Furthermore, we found over 1,000
different pathways in which the array of climatic hazards, via different transmission types,
resulted in disease outbreaks by a taxonomic diversity of pathogens. The sheer number of
pathogenic diseases and transmission pathways aggravated by climatic hazards reveals the
magnitude of the human health threat posed by climate change and the urgent need for
aggressive actions to mitigate GHG emissions.

Climate change triggers massive disease outbreaks

Emma Eagan, 9-10, 22, Climate change may make pandemics like COVID-19 much more
common, https://abcnews.go.com/Health/climate-change-make-pandemics-covid-19-
common/story?id=89586958

The likelihood of an extreme epidemic, or one similar to COVID-19, will increase threefold in the
coming decades, according to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The
researchers used data from epidemics from the past 400 years, specifically death rates, length
of previous epidemics and the rate of new infectious diseases. Their calculation is a sophisticated
prediction based on known risks and can be a useful guide for policy makers and public health officials. They also found that the
probability of a person experiencing a pandemic like COVID-19 in one’s lifetime is around 38%.
The researchers said this could double in years to come. The probability of another pandemic is
"going to probably increase because of all of the environmental changes that are occurring ,"
Willian Pan, an associate professor of Global Environmental Health at Duke University and one of the study's authors, told ABC
News. Scientists are looking closely at the relationship between climate changes and zoonotic
diseases, like COVID-19. Climate change and zoonotic diseases Zoonotic diseases are caused by germs
that spread between animals and people. Animals can carry viruses and bacteria that humans
can encounter directly, through contact, or indirectly, through things like soil or water supp ly,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "As you make that interface between humans and
the natural world smaller, we just come in more contact with those things and climate
enhances the ability for viruses to infect us more easily ," said Pan. He said our risk for any zoonotic or
emerging viral infections is going to rise over time. An example of this is the recent outbreak of Ebola in West
Africa. "There's evidence that there is loss of forests in West Africa for palm oil. There's a whole story around the palm oil
industry, destroying forest tropics to plant palm oil trees," said Dr. Aaron Bernstein, director of the Climate MD program at the
Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at Harvard University’s Chan School of Public Health. "In this case, there are
bats that live in those forests but they can't live in palm oil plantations. And so those bats moved to a part of West Africa where they
infected people with Ebola," said Bernstein. Zoonotic
diseases now account for 60% of all diseases and 75%
of emerging diseases, according to the CDC. "More animals come into contact with more people but they also, in many
cases, have resulted in animals bumping into other animals," said Bernstein. "What we've observed is that animals and even plants
are racing to the poles to get out of the heat. And as they do that, they may run into creatures that they've never run into before.
And that creates an opportunity for spillover to happen." Currently, scientists are playing catch up with viral outbreaks by racing to
create vaccines, sometimes after an outbreak is already out of control. "We can't deal with pandemics with Band-Aids. Meaning
after waiting until diseases show up, and then trying to figure out how to solve them," said Bernstein. Added Pan: "Globally, if we
want to prevent another major pandemic from completely disrupting our society, we need to start investing heavily and sharing
information across countries on surveillance of different viral infections. There's some places in the world where we don't even have
the basic capacity to evaluate or test strains, viral fevers coming into hospitals. And so a lot of those things go unchecked until it's
too late." Preventing these diseases not only requires global collaboration, but attention to the source of the problem. "We need to
address spillover. And that means we need to protect habitats. We need to tackle climate change. We need to address
the risk of large-scale livestock production because a lot of the pathogens move from wild animals into livestock and then into
people," said Bernstein. Global spending on COVID vaccines is projected to reach $157 billion, according to Reuters. Annual spending
on forest conservation is much less. "We're about to throw a whole lot of money at solutions that only address a fraction of the
problem. We get very little back relative to what we could get back for $1 spent on post spillover intervention versus root cause
prevention," said Bernstein.

Climate change unleashes catastrophic diseases – makes normal response

impossible.
Hoberg & Brooks ’15 (Eric & Daniel; 2/16/15; Field biologist, former Chief Curator of the U.S. National Parasite
Collection of the Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture & Professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University
of Toronto, specializes in biodiversity, systematics, and conservation biology; RSTB, “Evolution in action: climate change, biodiversity
dynamics and emerging infectious disease,” rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1665/20130553?
con&dom=zum&src=syndication)

Host–parasite systems are ubiquitous. Understanding the factors that generate, maintain and
constrain these associations has implications for broad ecological and environmental issues
including the dynamics of EIDs [29,39,61], biological control, biological introductions and invasions, and biotic responses
to climate change [25]. The Stockholm Paradigm postulates that parasite specialists can shift
rapidly to novel (naive) hosts via EF. EF between hosts and parasites occurs with high enough
frequency to influence host range dynamics and the diversity of species and interactions among
species. Although no quantitative statement of this importance can yet be made, it is clear from the above discussion that shifts
onto relatively unrelated hosts appear routinely in phylogenetic analyses and are observed readily in contemporary time. These
observations are fundamental for EID studies: EIDs
arise when parasite species begin infecting and causing
disease in host species with which they have no previous history of association . If the nature of host
specificity is such that the potential for EF is small, host shifts are likely to be rare and attention can be focused on managing each
EID as it emerges. Little attention need be paid to its origins, beyond a search for the taxonomic identity of the parasite acting as the
pathogen, and its immediate reservoir. If the potential for EF is large, however, then host shifts are likely to be common, and a more
predictive, pre-emptive framework for managing EID will be needed, greatly increasing the challenge of an already difficult problem.
Humanity has tended to react to emerging diseases as they occur, using our understanding of
epidemiology in an attempt to mitigate the damage done. If the Stockholm Paradigm reflects a
fundamentally correct explanation of the evolution of interspecific associations, then reactive
management policies for dealing with emerging diseases cannot be economically sustainable .
This implies that an additional strategy that could be employed in conjunction with those
reactive tactics is being proactive. We can use our knowledge of what has happened in the past
to help us anticipate the future. It is a kind of evolutionary risk assessment. Just as we cannot
stop climate change, we cannot stop these emerging diseases. We believe, however, that proactive
risk management [36,62] is less expensive and thus more effective, than responding after the
crisis. A broader macroevolutionary picture for general processes of expansion and invasion is emerging, which links historical and
contemporary systems. Historical conservatism is pervasive, and it is evident that equivalent mechanisms have structured faunal
assembly in the biosphere and that episodes of expansion and isolation have alternated over time. Fine-scale (landscape) processes
as a mosaic within larger events, while important, are idiosyncratic and more strongly influenced by chance and founder events.
Thus, in
contemporary associations, under the influence of accelerating change, we cannot always
predict which components of the biota will come into proximity or contact, the duration of
these events or the temporal order in which faunal mixing occurs. In these instances, the
importance of adaptation may be diminished, whereas the persistence of parasites and
pathogens through broad sloppy fitness space can be seen as the capacity to use rapidly
changing resources without narrow restriction to any particular ecological/environmental
setting. Climate and disturbance-driven taxon pulses coupled with oscillations in host range can be expected to influence the
frequency of EID, because they create episodes of geographical range shifts and expansions. The episodes, in turn, increase biotic
mixing and the opportunities for EF to occur. The current EID crisis is ‘new’ only in the sense that this is the first such event that
scientists have witnessed directly. Previous
episodes through earth history of global climate change and
ecological perturbation, broadly defined, have been associated with environmental disruptions
that led to EID [16,17,62]. From an epidemiological standpoint, episodes of global climate change
should be expected to be associated with the origins of new host–parasite associations and
bursts of EID. The combination of taxon pulses and EF suggests that host and parasite species with the greatest ability to
disperse should be the primary sources of EID [58,62–64]. Palaeontological studies suggest that species with large geographical
ranges and with high ability to disperse are most successful at surviving large-scale environmental perturbation and mass extinctions
[65]. Thus,
the species most successful at surviving global climate changes will be the primary
sources of EID, so host extinction will not limit the risk of EID. The planet is thus an evolutionary
and ecological minefield of EID through which millions of people, their crops and their livestock
wander daily.

That causes extinction – burnout is wrong.

Kerscher ’14 (Karl-Heinz; 2014; Professor, unclear where because every website about him is in German; Wissenschaftliche
Studie, “Space Education,” 92 Seiten)

The death toll for a pandemic is equal to the virulence , the deadliness of the pathogen or pathogens,
multiplied by the number of people eventually infected. It has been hypothesized that there is
an upper limit to the virulence of naturally evolved pathogens . This is because a pathogen that
quickly kills its hosts might not have enough time to spread to new ones, while one that kills its
hosts more slowly or not at all will allow carriers more time to spread the infection , and thus likely out-
compete a more lethal species or strain. This simple model predicts that if virulence and transmission are
not linked in any way, pathogens will evolve towards low virulence and rapid transmission . However,
this assumption is not always valid and in more complex models, where the level of virulence
and the rate of transmission are related, high levels of virulence can evolve. The level of
virulence that is possible is instead limited by the existence of complex populations of hosts , with
different susceptibilities to infection, or by some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition
between different strains of pathogens can also alter virulence. There
are numerous historical examples of
pandemics that have had a devastating effect on a large number of people, which makes the
possibility of global pandemic a realistic threat to human civilization .

Climate change undermining the US economy and causing inflation

Edward Helmore, June 11, 2022, Climate crisis is ‘battering our economy’ and driving inflation,
new book says, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/11/climate-
crisis-inflation-economy-climatenomics-book

According to Keefe, citing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) figures,
climate-related weather disasters cost the US economy more than $145bn in 2021 – a nearly
50% increase from last year. Over the last five years, they have cost $750bn. Since 1980 323
weather and climate disasters have cost $1bn or more, the total cost of these events exceeds
$2.195tn.

Moreover, according to a report from the reinsurance firm Swiss Re last year, climate disasters
could cost the US economy 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) – the broadest measure of
economic health – by 2050. Globally, that figure rises to 18%. A 2018 National Climate
Assessment (NCA) projects that rising temperatures and extreme heat are projected to decrease
worker productivity by $221bn a year by 2090, and climate-related weather disasters are
projected to cost the US $500bn a year.

Another study published in Environmental Research Letters in July last year, found long-term
warming contributed $27bn to the losses covered by the US crop insurance program from 1991
to 2017, or just over 19% of the total. In 2012, the single costliest year, rising temperatures
contributed nearly half of losses valued at $18.6bn.

While each of those relate to GDP and productivity, none specifically refer to inflation and
inflationary pressure – prices rising over time – and are not factored into official government
statistics released by the Bureau of Labor’s Consumer Price Index, which measures the changing
prices of a basket of goods and services.

Yellen and the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, have faced criticism for initially describing
inflation as a “transitory” problem that would resolve itself. Yellen has admitted that her initial
evaluation of the economy was “wrong” and that she and Powell “could have used a better term
than transitory”. She said that the “bulk of inflation” was related to imbalances in supply and
demand.

But that, too, has climate component, says David Super, professor of law and economics at
Georgetown University, who argues that climate change is largely ignored as an inflationary
driver, in part because it is manifesting as a global problem in overt and covert ways that
makes the direct inflationary impact hard to assess.

“Its impact is broad and systemic, so there’s no one item in the CPI that you can say reflects
climate change. We can say that grain and gas-oil costs reflect the Ukraine war but you can’t do
that with climate change because it affects so many things,” says Super.

Loss of timber and homes due to wildfires in the west might show up in housing construction
costs, or the cost of retrofitting homes to guard against coastal erosion and flooding. “Right
there you have several things that are either increasing demand or undermining supply,” Super
points out. “And that’s just one small part of it.”

Similarly, supply chain issues frequently cited as inflationary may not simply be issues around
China Covid lockdowns affecting manufacturing, but a range of issues from roads washing out
or loss of crops due to extreme weather events and shifting weather patterns.

The CPI is focused on results, not causes. The responsibility to assess causes rests with the White
House council of economic advisers or national cconomic council. Bodies that have attempted to
come out with estimates that have been met with challenges to their data by climate deniers,
resulting in paralysis.
 Food

Climate change undermining agriculture – higher temperatures, nutrition (from

increased CO2), yields (quantifiable)

Fateh Veer Singh Guaram, July 15, 2022, Eco Business, Climate change drives down yields and
nutrition of Indian crops, https://www.eco-business.com/news/climate-change-drives-down-
yields-and-nutrition-of-indian-crops/

As temperatures rise, the yields of food and cash crops in South Asia are expected to declin e,
putting pressure on food security in the region. India, home to 1.4 billion people, is ranked 101 out of 116 countries in the Global
Hunger Index, indicating a serious problem. Scientists and researchers project that a
2.5 to 4.9 degrees Celsius
increase in temperature across the country could lead to a decrease of 41 per cent-52 per cent
in the wheat yield, and 32 per cent-40 per cent in rice. It is important to start thinking about crop
diversification and focusing on diversified rice-based systems. Ranjitha Puskur, country representative for India, International Rice
Research Institute Arun Joshi, the Asia representative at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
explained that climate change, while pushing up temperatures, also affects the availability of water through a decrease in seasonal
rainfall and an increase in extreme rainfall events. “This
is bound to affect crops like maize, too, which is
sensitive to temperature and moisture,” he says, cautioning that global maize yields are
expected to decline by as much as 24 per cent by 2030. The yields of crops like sugar cane and rice are also
expected to decline. “The sudden increase in temperatures in March led to the sugar cane crop
withering in many places. While we are expecting a decrease in yields of up to 30 per cent, we are also expecting a
decrease in sugar content because of rising temperatures,” says VM Singh, a farmer and community leader from Uttar Pradesh,
India’s most populous state. India is among the largest producers of sugar cane in the world, with the industry impacting the
livelihood of nearly 50 million farmers across the country. Rice presents a unique challenge. While
rice yields are
expected to decline due to rising temperatures, rice paddies are also among the biggest
emitters of methane, a greenhouse gas. Several strategies are being adopted to limit methane emissions from rice
paddies, as well as the amount of water used in cultivation. “A major source of methane emissions is the decomposition of fertilisers
and crop residues in flooded rice cultivation. Inefficient application of nitrogen fertilisers promotes the release of nitrous oxide, a
potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere,” says Ranjitha Puskur, the country representative for India at the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI). To combat this, IRRI developed the Rice Crop Manager. “This tool recommends just the right amount of
fertiliser, which helps reduce emissions, saves costs for smallholder farmers and ensures soil health,” Puskur says. Stressing the
importance of rice in the diet of millions across the globe, Puskur believes rice should be part of the solution, rather than being
eliminated from cropping systems. “It is important to start thinking about crop diversification and focusing on diversified rice-based
systems.” Declining nutrition Data is sparse on the effect that global warming and erratic rainfall might have on the nutritional
quality of grains. However,
experts agree that an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere
will have an adverse effect, since elevated CO2 levels interfere with processes that are
important for the synthesis of protein in plants. A decline in the nutritional quality of grains
could exacerbate “hidden hunger”, a form of undernutrition where a person’s energy intake
may be high enough, but their intake of nutrients like iron and zinc is so low that it affects
their health and development negatively. Experiments in the United States, Japan and
Australia revealed that concentrations of iron, zinc and protein decreased in wheat, rice,
maize, peas and soya beans when they were exposed to elevated CO2 levels. Studies also indicate
that, by 2050, nearly 140 million people across the world could be suffering from a zinc deficiency, while nearly 150 million could
experience a protein deficiency. Puskur advocates the use of rice varieties high in zinc and iron. “We must also make the food plate
more diverse to ensure nutrition security,” she says. Madhura Swaminathan, who chairs the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation,
concurs on the need for a more diverse diet which includes fruits and vegetables, but points out that “the fight against climate
change, from a nutritional perspective, will be different in the west and in India”. “In the west, people are calling for meat
consumption to reduce. However, in India, where per capita meat consumption is minuscule, we cannot have people foregoing the
consumption of meat and eggs, since these are extremely important sources of nutrients.”

Agriculture production zones will shift to places crops can’t be grown and
volatility in changing agriculture production will increase prices

Marina Leiva, July 15, 2022, Marina Leiva is a senior reporter at Investment Monitor, where she
specialises in the agribusiness sector. Previously, she reported on institutional investments in
the UK, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal for MandateWire at the Financial Times. She started
her career in Spain, covering international affairs for Eldiario.es, Climate change and extreme
weather events hang heavy over global breadbasket countries,
https://www.just-food.com/analysis/global-breadbasket-countries-climate-change-crisis/
The compounded effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic have brought to light the vulnerabilities of
global food supply chains, particularly in countries known as global ‘breadbaskets’. Joana Colussi, an academic researcher at the
University of Illinois and collaborator on Farmdoc, a crop data programme designed by the university, adds that major
agricultural producers are also having to contend with the effects of climate change, with
extreme weather events such as La Niña in Brazil becoming more and more frequent. La Niña is a weather
phenomenon that cools off the surface ocean water along the tropical west coast of South America and contributes to extreme
weather events. “Meteorologists are forecasting a third consecutive year of La Niña,” she says. “The occurrence of two successive La
Niña winters in the Northern Hemisphere is common; however, having three in a row is relatively rare. A triple La Niña has
happened only twice since 1950. The last time La Nina was in place for three years in a row was from 1999 to 2001. “La Niña events
[tend to bring] increased rainfall across northern Brazil and decreased rainfall in southern Brazil. This has been the case this year,
with southern Brazil going deep into drought.” In the Brazilian 2021/22 crop season, which finished in June, soybean production
reached 124 million tonnes, a decrease of 10% compared with the previous season, according to the National Supply Company, an
agency within the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. “In the southern states of Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Mato Grosso do Sul, the
yields were 42% lower than last season," says Colussi. "These three southern states represent 38% of national soybean production.
On the plus side, Mato Grosso – the largest Brazilian soybean producer – and other states from the Brazilian mid-west, north and
north-east had a record-breaking 2021–22 harvest.” Climate change having big impact on global breadbaskets Extreme weather
events such as La Niña, and shifting climate patterns across the world, will likely translate into changes to global production yields
and breadbaskets as growing conditions are affected. These changes will be advantageous to some countries while others will see
their food production levels suffer, according to Alan Matthews, professor emeritus of European agricultural policy at Trinity College
Dublin. “Because of global warming, a comparative advantage will shift from countries in the mid-latitudes where higher
temperatures will have a larger adverse impact on yields, to higher latitudes where higher temperatures may favour food
production; for example, Canada and Russia,” he says. However, Matthews stresses that “there is still great uncertainty about the
magnitude of these impacts for different countries and crops across the different models [known as global gridded crop models]
used to estimate these impacts”. In
the case of the most grown cereal crop in the world, maize , Dr
Florian Schierhorn, research associate at the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in
Transition Economies, explains that its latest research shows that it is very likely maize yields
will be under increasing pressure worldwide as a result of climate change. Maize yields are very likely
to decrease “without adaption or big steps in technology”, he says. The three largest exporters of maize are located on the US
continent – the US, Argentina and Brazil – followed by Ukraine. Schierhorn
explains that in the case of wheat
there are only a few breadbaskets that could – or are very likely – to benefit from higher
temperatures. These would be in higher-altitude regions such as northern Canada, northern
parts of the US or Russia, as well as some parts of the southern hemisphere such as Argentina.
However, Schierhorn adds that vast tracts of these regions are not really croplands, “they are
forests or unproductive agricultural lands and pastures”. This translates into a trade-off, as these areas might
have suitable climate conditions, but if the forests are converted into cropland, this could in turn increase greenhouse gas emissions,
as forests are better at capturing carbon. The consensus seems to be that as climate change advances, the
world will have larger and more often extreme weather events, according to Nicholas Paulson, associate
head of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois. From an agricultural perspective, what
that brings into play is “just more risk, more uncertainty, which again, will manifest itself into
more commodity price volatility”, he adds, explaining that this will lead to “periods of very
high prices when we have natural disasters and poor growing conditions, and then periods of
lower prices when we have good growing conditions and markets respond by producing large
crops”. “We have seen that play out in markets, with the increased level of volatility for commodities such as corn, soybeans and
wheat in the past few years," says Paulson. "Obviously, part of that [volatility stems from the situation in Ukraine], but I think we are
going to see more volatility moving forward due to climate change.”

Climate change causing mass fish die-offs, threatening the global food supply

University of Arkansas, 8-26, 22, Climate change is increasing frequency of fish mass die-offs,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220826131213.htm

As the planet's climate has gotten warmer, so has the prevalence of fish die-offs, or mass
mortality events. These die-offs can have severe impacts on the function of ecosystems,
imperil existing fish populations and reduce the global food supply. And the frequency of these events
appears to be accelerating, with potentially dire consequences for the world if global carbon emissions are not substantially reduced
over the 21st century. Those are the findings of a recent paper co-authored by two members of the University of Arkansas
Department of Biological Sciences: doctoral student Simon Tye and associate professor Adam Siepielski, along with several of their
colleagues. The paper, "Climate warming amplifies the frequency of fish mass mortality events across the north temperate lakes,"
compiled 526 documented cases of fish die-offs that occurred across Minnesota and Wisconsin lakes between 2003 and 2013. The
researchers determined there were three main drivers of these events: infectious diseases, summerkills and winterkills. The
researchers then narrowed their focus to summerkills -- fish mortalities associated with warm temperatures. They found a strong
relationship between local air and water temperatures and the occurrence of these events, meaning they increased in frequency as
temperature increased. Moreover, their models that used either air or water temperature provided similar results, which is
important because air temperature data is more widely available than water temperature data across the world. Finally, with a
historical baseline established, the team used air and water temperature-based models to predict frequencies of future summerkills.
The results were sobering. Based on local water temperature projections, the
models predicted an approximate six-
fold increase in the frequency of fish mortality events by 2100 , while local air temperature projections
predicted a 34-fold increase. Importantly, these predictions were based on temperature projections from the most severe climate
change scenario, which was the only scenario with the necessary data for these analyses. As Tye explained, "If there are eight
summerkills per year now, the models suggest we could have about 41 per year based on water temperature estimates or about 182
per year based on air temperature estimates." "We think predictions from the water temperature model are more realistic, whereas
predictions from the air temperature model indicate we need to better understand how and why regional air and water
temperature estimates differ over time to predict how many mortality events may occur." Nevertheless, their models
reveal
strong associations between rising temperatures and frequencies of ecological catastrophes.
Though the study used data related to temperate northern lakes, Tye said the study is pertinent to Arkansas. "One of the findings of
the paper is that similar deviations in temperature affect all types of fish, such that a regional heatwave could lead to mortalities of
both cold- and warm-water fish," he said. "Specifically, climate change is more than gradually increasing temperatures because it
also increases temperature variation, such as we experienced much of this summer," he explained "In turn, our findings suggest
these rapid changes in temperature affect a wide range of fish regardless of their thermal tolerance." Siepielski added, "This work is
important because it demonstrates the feasibility of using readily obtainable data to anticipate fish die offs. "As with many examples
of how climate warming is negatively affecting wild animal populations, this work reveals that temperature extremes can be
particularly detrimental." "The large scale of the project, using thousands of lakes and over a million air and temperature data
points, is particularly impressive," Siepielski added. "Lakes outside the study area, including those in Arkansas and surrounding areas,
are not likely to be immune to these events increasing in frequency." Siepielski encouraged citizens of Arkansas to help document
these events when they find evidence of them, even on their own property, by contacting the relevant authorities. The paper was
published in Limnology and Oceanography Letters. Tye and Siepielski are joined by co-authors Andrew Bray, Andrew L. Rypel,
Nicholas B.D. Phelps and Samuel B. Fey.
Emissions collapse sustainable food chains and oceanic production.
Mills ’15 (Robyn; 10/13/15; Media & Communications Officer at the University of Adelaide, citing Australian Research Council
Associate Professor Ivan Nagelkerken; Adelaide.edu, “Global marine analysis suggests food chain collapse,”
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news81042.html)

Global marine analysis suggests food chain collapse Tuesday, 13 October 2015 A world-first
global analysis of marine responses to climbing human CO2 emissions has painted a grim picture
of future fisheries and ocean ecosystems. Published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS), marine ecologists from the University of Adelaide say the expected ocean
acidification and warming is likely to produce a reduction in diversity and numbers of various
key species that underpin marine ecosystems around the world. “This ‘simplification’ of our oceans
will have profound consequences for our current way of life, particularly for coastal populations and those that rely on
oceans for food and trade,” says Associate Professor Ivan Nagelkerken , Australian Research Council (ARC) Future
Fellow with the University’s Environment Institute. Associate Professor Nagelkerken and fellow University of Adelaide marine
ecologist Professor Sean Connell have conducted a ‘meta-analysis’ of the data from 632 published experiments covering tropical to
artic waters, and a range of ecosystems from coral reefs, through kelp forests to open oceans. “We
know relatively little
about how climate change will affect the marine environment,” says Professor Connell. “Until
now, there has been almost total reliance on qualitative reviews and perspectives of potential global
change. Where quantitative assessments exist, they typically focus on single stressors, single
ecosystems or single species. “This analysis combines the results of all these experiments to
study the combined effects of multiple stressors on whole communities, including species
interactions and different measures of responses to climate change. ” The researchers found that
there would be “limited scope” for acclimation to warmer waters and acidification. Very few
species will escape the negative effects of increasing CO2 , with an expected large reduction in species diversity
and abundance across the globe. One exception will be microorganisms, which are expected to increase
in number and diversity. From a total food web point of view, primary production from the smallest plankton
is expected to increase in the warmer waters but this often doesn’t translate into secondary production (the zooplankton and
smaller fish) which shows decreased productivity under ocean acidification. “ With
higher metabolic rates in the
warmer water, and therefore a greater demand for food, there is a mismatch with less food
available for carnivores ─ the bigger fish that fisheries industries are based around,” says Associate
Professor Nagelkerken. “There will be a species collapse from the top of the food chain down.” The
analysis also showed that with warmer waters or increased acidification or both, there would be deleterious impacts on habitat-
forming species for example coral, oysters and mussels. Any
slight change in the health of habitats would have
a broad impact on a wide range of species these reefs harbour. Another finding was that acidification would
lead to a decline in dimethylsulfide gas (DMS) production by ocean plankton which helps cloud formation and therefore in
controlling the Earth’s heat exchange.

Loss of resource chains and ocean life cause global famine and extinction.
Young ’14 (Grace; 1/17/14; thesis submitted for a Bachler of Science in Mechanical & Ocean Engineering at MIT; thesis,
“Missiles & Misconceptions: Why We Know More About the Dark Side of the Moon than the Depths of the Ocean”
http://mseas.mit.edu/publications/Theses/Grace_C_Young_BS_Thesis_MIT2014.pdf)

The misconceptions that drove spending on space were mirrored in our lack of knowledge about the ocean's importance. Our
ambivalence about the ocean is reflected in the vast disparity in research funding. Today, however, we are beginning to understand
how dependent we are on the ocean, and how the
impact of human-induced climate change , pollution, and
overfishing on the ocean are far more threatening to our survival than whether we “control the heavens." The
ocean, which cover's 71% of Earth's surface, produces at least half the oxygen we breath and filters deadly carbon dioxide.86 It is a
crucial regular of global climate and weather, but one we do not understand. Since 1950 there has been a dramatic increase in
extreme weather,87 requiring billions of dollars spent globally towards repair and response efforts. Moreover, eight of the world's
top ten largest cities are located on the seacoast. The ocean they adjoin is profoundly changing in complex ways we do not
understand. Marine species are disappearing before we know of their existence . These species are not
only matters of curiosity, but can hold secrets to understanding life and medicine, and are integral to the health of
marine ecosystems.{ The oceans have become 26% more acidic since the start of the Industrial Revolution
and continue to acidify at an unprecedented rate .88 Acidification affects marine ecosystems; it especially harms
shelled creatures such as oysters and muscles that filter water,89 but can benefit sea grass and other invasive plants that will
overwhelm ecosystems and accelerate the extinction of marine animal species.90 At
the same time acidification from
climate change is threatening entire ecosystems, industrial and agricultural pollution, plus
increasing volumes of human trash are threatening to overwhelm the ocean's ability to
regenerate. The National Academy of Science estimated that in 1975 more than 750 tons of garbage was dumped into the
ocean every hour.91 Fortunately, in 1987 the US ratified Marpol Annex V, an international treaty that made it illegal to throw non-
biodegradable trash overboard from ships in the waters of signatory countries. While this is progress, the MARPOL law is difficult to
enforce. Governments do not know where or when dumping happens because there is no infrastructure for monitoring or policing
the vast oceans. Sadly, Nature magazine reported that during the 1990s debris in the waters near Britain doubled, and debris in the
Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica increased one hundred fold.92 Today we do not know how much trash is in the ocean. Author
Donovan Hohn noted in 2008, “Not even oceanographers can tell us exactly how much floating scruff is out there; oceanographic
research is simply too expensive and the ocean too varied and vast."93 But the number is not good. Strandedwhales and
other marine life with trash filling their bellies serve as a powerful harbinger for what is to come
(Figure 11), and more oceanographic research is needed. Along with pollution and climate change, overfishing is
among the greatest threats facing our ocean and human wellbeing. A study in Science projected that all commercial fish and
seafood species will collapse by 2048.94 Already, populations of large fish, including tuna, swordfish, marlin, cod,
halibut, skates, ounder, and others, have reduced by 90% since 1950, according to a 2003 study in Nature.95 A world without
seafood will harm developing nations the most. More than 3.5 billion people globally depend on the ocean
for their primary source of food, and most of those people are in fast-growing developing regions of Asia and Africa.96 In
20 years, the number could double to 7 billion.97 Fortunately, according to a pivotal paper published in Science in 2006,
overfishing is proven to be a reversible problem, but only if humans act effectively within the
next decade.98 Otherwise, global malnutrition and famine is on the horizon as so far aquaculture has not been
able to keep up with the dramatic losses of wild catch. “Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species
together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," marine ecologist Steve Palumbi warned.99
NOAA has made substantial progress in regulating US fisheries, although that fact must be taken with a grain of salt because the US
imports 91% of its seafood.100 Moreover, the most catastrophic overfishing is occurring in international waters where traditional
industrial fishing nations continue to resist stronger efforts at global regulation. Realizing the ocean's importance to humankind,
President Kennedy became a staunch advocate for ocean research shortly before he died. Exactly a month before his assassination,
he asked Congress to double the nation's ocean research budget and greatly expand ocean research for the sake of worldwide
security and health. He called for a global ocean research initiative: The ocean, the atmosphere, outer space, belong not to one
nation or one ideology, but to all mankind, and as science carries out its tasks in the years ahead, it must enlist all its own disciplines,
all nations prepared for the scientific quest, and all men capable of sympathizing with the scientific impulse.101 He had no chance to
see his plans through, however, and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, was focused on space as the “high ground" and “control of the
heavens" for perceived military and geo-political reasons. 4.3 Extent of Oceanographic Knowledge During the space race, leaders
believed that the ocean was an already conquered territory. In 1962, President Kennedy called space a “new ocean,"102 although
95% of the ocean remains unseen by human eyes.103 As mentioned previously, Johnson suggested space technology would be to
the 20th century what ships were to the British Empire for the past millennia,104. Kennedy echoed Johnson's words: We set sail on
this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the
progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a
force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether
this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.105 The truth remains, however, that we have not
conquered the seas. As discussed in Sections 2.2 and 3.2, ocean
exploration has largely been a surface affair .
90% of the ocean's volume, the dark, cold environment we call the deep sea, is largely unknown.106 In 1960, when
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh became the first men to reach the deepest part of the ocean, they saw only saw two fish,107 so it
was mistakenly envisioned that the deep ocean was essentially lifeless. In reality, however, it is teaming with life. Tim Shank, a deep-
sea biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, explained why the explorers did not see much life near the Mariana Trench:
The waters above the Challenger Deep are extremely unproductive in part because algee at the surface prevents food from being
cycled in deeper waters. \If it had been a trench with a productive water column, like the Kermadec Trench near New Zealand, I
think he would have seen much more biology," he told Nature.108 Fantastic photos from Cousteau's shallow water missions helped
to fill the gap, showing brilliant life in sea, but those only scratched the surface. An estimated two thirds of marine species are yet to
be discovered.109 In 2014, NASA's budget is $17 billion. Its space exploration budget alone is $3.8 billion,110 hundreds of times
more than NOAA's office of ocean exploration and research budget of $23.7 million.111k The discrepancy in funding for ocean
exploration, particularly in comparison to that for space, has lasting effects that inhibit efforts for continued exploration. After his
mission to the Mariana Trench in 2012, James Cameron candidly told the press that the state of today's ocean exploration is “piss
poor."112 He continued, The public needs to understand that the US government is no longer in a leadership position when it comes
to science and exploration, as they were in the 1960s and 1970s. We have this image of ourselves in this country as number one,
leading edge, that sort of thing and it is just not the case.113 Cameron, who privately funded his journey to the Mariana Trench,
noted that private individuals such as Eric Schmidt, Google's former chief executive and founder of the Schmidt Ocean Institute,
have made strides in trying to up for what governments are not doing, but progress is still slow due to lack of government
infrastructure. Author Ben Hellwarth explains: [P]rivate groups--including the team of Jacques Cousteau, who was as great a
pitchman and fundraiser as anyone--would find sea dwelling and exploration a tough business to pursue, especially without a
government-primed infrastructure and market like the one that evolved for space travel. The situation was something like tech
mogul Elon Musk trying to launch SpaceX without the benefit of a space station or the many trails NASA blazed with its billions.114
To illustrate, Hellwarth elaborates with the recent history of the undersea habitat Aquarius: The kind of public interest and unbridled
enthusiasm that has long sustained the space program and NASA's multibillion-dollar budgets has never materialized for like-minded
quests into the ocean. Last year's near closure of the world's only sea base was the latest case in point. If you can't name this unique,
American-run undersea outpost, you are not alone, and that's at least part of the problem. It's called the Aquarius Reef Base, and for
the past two decades, this school-bus-sized structure has been operating a few miles south of the Florida Keys and a few fathoms
below the surface. From its beginning Aquarius has typically had to squeak by on less than $3 million a year, sometimes much less
than a drop in the fiscal bucket by space program standards. (NASA's estimated cost of a single space shuttle launch, for example,
was $450 million.) Then last year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which owns Aquarius, decided to pull the
plug on the base. An organized effort to save Aquarius created an unusual surge in media and other attention, not major front-page
headlines, to be sure, but there was at least a discernible spike.115 Even after the Cold War ended in the early 1990s with fall of
Berlin Wall, NASA's budget remained dramatically larger than budgets for ocean research. The reason for the budget disparity has
less to do with commercial or military reasons, and more to do with lingering geo-political issues and inertia from the Cold War,
including constituencies in Congress, an independent governmental agency, and established defense contractors that benefit from
government-funded space exploration. Contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for example, have immense capacity to
lobby Congress for further funding. Ocean exploration, on the other hand, had almost no constituency outside of the scientific
community, which alone has little political clout. Because of the lingering effects of misconceptions, ocean exploration lags far
behind space exploration, to the point that our dearth of oceanographic knowledge may result in serious harm to humankind in the
next generation. 5 Conclusion: Will There Be a Sputnik for the Ocean? The sea, the great unifier, is man's only hope. Now, as never
before, the old phrase has a literal meaning: We are all in the same boat. Jacques Cousteau Since 5000 BC, humans have progressed
from star-gazers to moon-walkers and from shallow-water swimmers to deep-sea explorers. Technological innovation drove
exploration in both space and sea to unprecedented levels, particularly during the mid-1900s. With the start of the Cold War,
however, ocean exploration proceeded at a snail's pace compared to space research. This sudden shift in priority was due to
misconceptions about the military and geopolitical importance of space and the ocean's importance to human wellbeing. Looking
back, there are many \what ifs" in the history of exploration. For example, what if Eisenhower had his wish of making NASA part of
the Department of Defense? Then we most likely would not have reached the moon or Mars because those NASA missions were not
primarily military-oriented. What if the Soviets launched the first deep sea vehicle rather than the first orbiting satellite? Might there
have been a Sputnik-like reaction towards the ocean rather than space? What if Kennedy wasn't assassinated and got his wish of
creating a global ocean research initiative in the 1960s? Looking ahead, progress
in ocean exploration and
management looks dire. This is especially tragic because marine environments and ecosystems
are degrading, even disappearing, at the fastest rate in 300 million years, 116 as they face the triple
threat of acidification, warming, and deoxygenation . “The health of the ocean is spiraling
downwards far more rapidly than we had thought .. . . The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone
since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth," Professor Alex Rogers of Oxford
University emphasizes.117 The US government probably will not fund the necessary research anywhere near the scale it continues
to fund space research. As such, scientists are increasingly looking for private and industrial support. James Cameron, the Cousteau
legacy, and Eric Schmidt among others are showing that privately-funded ocean exploration is possible. The underfunded and oft-
delayed “SeaOrbiter" project, which aims to be the ocean equivalent of a space station, shows how difficult fund-raising for such
projects can be.118 Yet SeaOrbiter would cost a tiny fraction of a single space shuttle flight. That the ocean was a place for
international collaboration probably hurt it during the decades of Cold War hysteria; but hopefully we can now use that to an
advantage, to bring nations together. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) showed how large-scale multinational
research, funded by a combination of governments and industry sectors, can be successful. The future of ocean exploration might
depend on a oceanographic version of CERN. Or, it could be in research studies tied to national interests, like the space program. As
a recent national forum on the future of the ocean stated, ocean exploration as an urgent necessity, and an issue of national
security.119 Let us hope that not only the US government, but also the entire global
 Gender Violence

Climate change will trigger gender violence

Adam Barnes, July 14, 2022, The Hill, How climate change could drive violence against women
and minorities https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3559007-how-climate-
change-could-drive-violence-against-women-and-minorities/

Extreme weather events resulting from climate change can lead to an increase in gender-
based violence, according to a recent study. “The review is quite consistent with what we know about disasters,” said Susan
Cutter, director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, who was not
involved in the study. “Any
kind of disaster, whether it is climate-related or not, disproportionately
impacts the most vulnerable.” These weather events can erode critical infrastructure while
exacerbating economic hardships, which can lead to violent and criminal behavior , the researchers
said. The research focused on a final sample of 41 studies from 10 databases that focused on gender-based violence and their
relation to natural disasters.
Researchers found that extreme weather events were linked to various
forms of domestic abuse ranging from physical and sexual assault to trafficking and forced
marriage. The team, led by Kim van Daalen, who studies global public health at the University of Cambridge, cited 21st century
disasters like Hurricane Katrina to highlight backlash against the LGBTQ+ community. “Sexual and gender minorities face specific and
increased risks of gender-based violence, which are important to consider in gender-based violence policies, interventions and
services,” van Daalen said. Van Daalen added that this review differed from previous studies because it included people from sexual
and gender minorities who “are often neglected within research on gender-based violence.” Researchers acknowledged that the
study carried an English language bias, but they said it is still important as it moved away from previous research that focused on
social unrest brought on by weather disasters. “This
review focuses on what happens at the micro-level. As
gender violence affects millions of women and gender minorities around the world , it is really
crucial to talk about violence at a smaller scale,” said Tobias Ide, who studies politics and international relations at Murdoch
University in Perth, Australia. “The causes for each of these problems differ greatly, and each one needs specific interventions,” he
said.
 Health

Climate change threatens human health (practical impact)

Time Reed, 9-17, 22, 1. The climate-driven health crisis,

https://www.axios.com/2022/09/17/climate-change-public-health-crisis

The world is facing a climate change-fueled health crisis — from increased emergency
department visits due to heatstroke, exacerbated asthma and even heart attacks to injuries
and illness linked to severe storms. Why it matters: The growing threats to human health only promise to get more
complex and expensive, and health systems have to make major changes to how they prepare for
those threats, experts say. They're already estimated to exceed $800 billion a year in increased
health costs. "It's challenging because this is happening fast," Beth Schenk, executive director of environmental stewardship for
Washington state-based Providence health system, tells Axios. Last summer, the health system found itself in the center of a
"shocking" heat wave in the Pacific Northwest at the same time that its workforce was already stretched thin due to COVID surges.
The extreme heat stressed its buildings' cooling systems and forced the health system to reduce services in some cases even as its
emergency rooms were filling due to heat-related illnesses, she said. "The requirements
for your hospitals are to be
appropriate for your climatic conditions. Well, our climatic conditions when we built those
hospitals were not for 116 degrees," she said. "That has certainly colored how we're planning now in our hazard
vulnerability assessments, in our resiliency building, to be prepared for that again. It seems inevitable," she said. Zoom in: During
California's record-breaking heat event earlier this month, Kaiser Permanente switched to generators for power at its individual
facilities to help reduce the stress on the state's electric grid, said Ramé Hemstreet, Kaiser Permanente's chief sustainable resources
officer. The goal was to ensure that more individuals in the community kept their power, including their cooling units. "It highlights
the fact we need to think about resiliency more broadly," said Hemstreet. The health system already generates about 28% of its
energy onsite but is investing in more microgrid and solar fuel cells moving forward, Hemstreet said. Climate
change has
also been linked to increased risks for kidney disease, obesity and diabetes, injuries, the
transmission of infectious diseases, some cancers and poorer mental health. What they're saying:
"We are learning more and more that the combustion of fossil fuels is contributing to a massive epidemic of chronic disease around
the world that dwarfs AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined," said Gary Cohen, president and founder of Health Care Without
Harm, a group that focuses on reducing health care's carbon footprint. There's a growing recognition among U.S. health systems that
the threats from climate change will have a major impact on their operations. "A lot of health care systems have started to grapple
with the direct physical risks to their own facilities," said Brodie Boland, a leader in McKinsey's work on climate risk in the real estate
and infrastructure sectors. Between the lines: Equity is central to the discussion about the health impacts of climate change.
"Climate change is impacting everybody. But it's not impacting everybody in the same way," said Seema Wadhwa, who is Kaiser
Permanente's executive director of environmental stewardship. For instance, older individuals and those who are
immunocompromised are more vulnerable to the impacts of high temperatures and poor air quality. Those individuals who depend
on insulin or dialysis could be at greater risk in the event of a power outage or blockages to transportation. Some communities face
greater threats than others. "A hospital can do what it can from a backup generator and asset hardening perspective, but if the city
around it has been severely damaged, there's only so much you can do," Boland said. In one example, Providence said its population
health team realized during last year's heat emergency that it was sitting on a massive amount of valuable information in its
electronic health record that could help its response. That EHR data helped them reach out directly to individuals at greater risk of
health complications due to the heat and get them to places with cooling or air filtration and ensure they had access to medications,
Schenk said.

Climate change destroys kids’ health

Tara Law, June 17, 2022, Time, How Climate Change and Air Pollution Affect Kids' Health,
https://time.com/6188760/climate-change-air-pollution-kids-health/
Climate change affects everyone, but especially children. Their small bodies—and the fact that
they grow so rapidly, starting from the time they’re in utero—make them more vulnerable to
toxins, pollution, and other climate-change fallout. Over their lifetimes, kids also face greater
exposure to the damage of climate change than adults.

A new scientific review article published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows just how
dangerous climate-related threats are to children’s health. The researchers analyzed data about
the specific effects of a rapidly warming planet and found that climate change, driven in large
part by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, harms children’s mental and physical health
from the time they are in the womb through childhood—with potentially lifelong effects. These
dangers threaten many aspects of children’s health, from the development of their lungs, to
their intellectual ability, to their mental health. Socially and economically disadvantaged
children are especially affected, but all children are at risk. “It’s not just polar bears on melting
icebergs,” says study co-author Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s
Environmental Health. “There is direct harm, now, to children’s health—and certainly their
future is being jeopardized in a major way.”

Policies that shift countries away from fossil fuels to renewable, more efficient sources of
energy are likely to improve kids’ health, the study authors say. Health professionals should
also acknowledge and learn about the health risks of climate change to better help their young
patients. “We know how to do it; we know alternatives, and they’re working in different
countries,” Perera says. “We just have to speed the process up…and put into effect the solutions
we know work.”

Here are three big threats that stem from climate change and threaten all children around the
world, according to the new research.

Polluted air

Air pollution affects children’s health in many ways. Through exposure to polluted air, children
breathe in fine particulate matter created when cars, factories, and other sources burn fossil
fuels. Air-pollution exposure to the fetus during a mother’s pregnancy has also been linked to
low birth weight, premature births and stillbirths; scientists hypothesize that may be because
air pollution can result in inflammation that makes it hard for nutrition to get to the fetus, says
Dr. Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician and interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and
the Global Environment at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (who was not involved in
the new study). “Particulate pollution is a source of infant death, including stillbirth and death in
infancy,” says Bernstein. Air pollution can also harm children’s lung growth and functioning, and
put them at higher risk for conditions like respiratory infections, bronchitis and asthma.

Other research suggests that air pollution can adversely affect children’s minds starting in
utero. An expecting mother’s exposure to air pollution particles “can be directly toxic to the
developing brain” of her fetus, says Perera. “They are able to traverse the placenta.” One
research review published in Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology in 2020 includes numerous
studies that link exposure to air pollution to lower cognitive function in children. Other research
has found associations between exposure to pollution and symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Pollutants also contribute to climate change—which, in turn, increases air pollution by fueling
many of the conditions that cause wildfires, including heat and drought. And higher
temperatures are thought to contribute to the development of ozone, a pollutant that harms
the lungs and worsens conditions like asthma.

Less nutritious food

Climate change is undermining one of the central building blocks for growing children: healthy
food. Extreme weather events that destroy food crops, including drought, flooding, and higher
temperatures, are becoming more common. These can drive up the price of food and make it
scarcer. Even when children have enough food, they still may not have adequate nutrients;
emerging research shows that high carbon dioxide levels may make food less nutritious.

Getting enough calories and essential nutrients is central to ensuring kids grow up healthy. If
kids are under-nourished, “their brains don’t develop normally,” says Bernstein. “It affects every
organ.”

Global hunger is already very common and experts predict it will get worse. In 2021, about
193 million people were acutely food insecure—which the United Nations defines as food
inadequacy that endangers lives or livelihoods—and about 26 million children were suffering
from wasting, a condition in which kids don’t have enough weight for their height, according
to the World Food Programme.

More trauma

A world altered by climate change is more dangerous for children. Famines, drought, and
extreme weather events are becoming more common as a result of climate change, as are the
violent interpersonal conflicts that such disasters tend to generate; for instance, climate change-
driven drought is thought to have contributed to the outbreak of the 2011 war in Syria. On a
hotter planet, children are more likely to be exposed to trauma, including displacement;
globally, about 2.4 million children were displaced by natural disasters alone in 2021,
according to UNICEF.

Living through major trauma as a child is thought to increase risk for both mental illnesses like
depression as well as physical conditions such as cancer, asthma, and stroke. Stress in
expecting mothers can also harm their fetus’ cognitive development.

“If your house gets burned down or flooded by a hurricane, if you’re impoverished because your
family’s livelihood has been destroyed by drought—these are adverse childhood events,” says
Bernstein, “and they can accumulate and exact harms across the lifespan.”

Warming undermines sleep and kills

Melillo, 8-18, 22, The Hill, Climate change can alter sleep, increase susceptibility to disease:
study, https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/3607938-climate-
change-can-alter-sleep-increase-susceptibility-to-disease-study/

Coming on the heels of new research that suggests warmer nights could lead to a 60 percent
increase in global mortality, a new review published in the journal Temperature outlines how
climate change can impact sleep patterns, making humans more vulnerable to infectious
diseases. Previous studies have shown changes in people’s thermoregulation and ambient temperature
increases can disrupt sleep, wrote author Michael R. Irwin, professor of psychiatry and biobehavorial sciences at the
University of California, Los Angeles: “By priming the innate immune response, sleep prepares the body for injury or infection which
might occur the following day.” Disrupted
sleep can lead to increased inflammatory markers and
interfere with immune system balance. “Under these conditions, sleep disturbance has additional potent effects to
decrease adaptive immune response, impair vaccine responses, and increase vulnerability to infectious disease,” Irwin wrote.
America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. The
association points to questions surrounding timely events as the world continues to suffer the ramifications of the COVID-19
pandemic and in light of a recent global health emergency declared for monkeypox. For the first time in years, evidence of rising
polio cases has also been detected. This summer, the United States has already experienced record-breaking heat and projections
estimate that by the middle of the century, more than 100 million Americans will face extreme temperatures. Implications of
poor sleep resulting from higher temperatures could also take a disproportionate toll on
underserved populations who may not have access to air conditioning and are at an increased
risk of heat-related adverse health effects. A survey of 765,000 individuals included in the review showed increased
nighttime temperatures exacerbated rates of self-reported poor sleep— a finding that was particularly strong among the elderly and
lower-income communities. Data assessed also revealed the eldery and those with existing inflammatory disorders might be at an
increased risk of heat-related poor sleep outcomes. Some of these populations, like individuals with cardiovascular disease or
depression are also at a heightened risk of insomnia. In one study, those who were partially deprived of sleep for four nights showed
a 50 percent reduction in antibody amounts from a flu vaccine compared with those who got normal sleep. Further infectious
disease models have proved longer sleep duration can decrease bacterial load and improve survival. More research should
investigate these and any additional effects of warming temperatures on sleep patterns and resulting immune function, Irwin said.
“Just like the pandemic is impacting socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic groups disproportionately with more morbid
outcomes, it might be that increases in ambient temperature we’re seeing are further exaggerating those risk profiles.”
 Hegemony
Warming ends hegemony
Magnuson 8 – Managing Editor – National Defense Magazine (Stew, “Climate Change Fears Spill
Over To The Defense Community”, National Defense, August 2008,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/August/Climate.htm)
Shifting weather patterns may cause severe droughts, devastating storms, coastal flooding and erosion.
Nations may wage war over water as rivers dry up. Tropical diseases may spread to temperate climates.
Widespread population displacements due to these factors may make for an increasingly volatile world,
the thinking goes. Developed nations such as the United States and those in Europe may be able to withstand these calamities. But
less stable, underdeveloped countries would have a more difficult time coping. The Departments of Defense and Homeland Security
may be forced to deal with the climate change’s indirect consequences, the reports said. Droughts, famine and displaced
populations may put pressure on the domestic front. The Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection may face a
wave of so-called “climate migrants” coming from stricken nations. The Defense Department may be called to provide
disaster relief following extreme weather events such as hurricanes. Societies in turmoil are also fertile breeding
grounds for extremist or separatists groups. Ground forces may be ordered to resolve conflicts, the reports noted.
The Defense Department “needs to integrate the national security consequences of climate change into national security and
national defense strategies,” said Sherri Goodman, the former deputy undersecretary of defense for environmental security and an
analyst who spearheaded a CNA Corp. report, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The Office of the Director of
National Intelligence recently chimed in on the debate when it summarized a national intelligence assessment addressing the
security implications of global climate change out to the year 2030. “We judge global climate change will have wide-
ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the next 20 years,” said Thomas Fingar, the DNI’s
deputy director and chairman of the national intelligence council. There will be winners and losers as the planet’s climate evolves,
Fingar noted. There may be unintended benefits such as longer growing seasons in the north and new shipping routes in the Arctic.
“Nevertheless, many regional states important to the U nited S tates will be negatively impacted,” he said.
Fingar would not name specific countries, although the classified version of the report did drill down into individual nations, he said.
R. James Woolsey, a former CIA director, is among those who believe that the climate is changing, and that there may be short- or
long-term consequences for the defense community. “We may find that our armed forces are being called up increasingly to a fair
number of missions,” he told National Defense. Woolsey contributed a chapter to the “Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and
National Security Implications of Global Climate Change,” a joint report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the
Center for a New American Security. Woolsey’s predictions about the possible effects of global warming are more conservative than
some of those put forth in the contentious debate. He likens the placement of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to that of a two-
pack-a-day smoker. No one can say for certain that he will get cancer by age 55, but there is a risk. “I think we’re increasing the risk
of things like ice sheet melting by putting so much carbon into the atmosphere,” he said. Some climate change phenomena could be
attributable to natural cycles, he said. And no one will ever be able to prove that one particular hurricane is the direct result of a
warming planet, he added. Woolsey is as concerned about energy security as he is about climate change. For him, and many others,
the two topics go hand in hand. The United States is overly dependant on foreign oil from unstable regions such as the Persian Gulf.
“Oil presents a panoply of opportunities for and encouragement of mass terrorism,” he wrote in the report. He recalled sparring
with a skeptical Republican congressman in a Capitol Hill hearing, who believed that global warming is a myth. After explaining that
many of the actions the nation should take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would also reduce greenhouse gases, the
lawmaker conceded the point. “Do them for that reason, you don’t need to do them for reasons of climate change,” he said. Too
often in Congress, Woolsey said, lawmakers are not looking at the bigger picture and are just trying to score “debating points.”
Woolsey’s assertion seemed to be proven at a joint House hearing. Fingar presented the summary of the national intelligence
estimate on climate change, but had little time to discuss the report’s salient points. The debate quickly split down party lines with
Republicans attacking the methodology of the report, and mocking climate scientists in the 1970s who were predicting “global
cooling.” Democrats praised the report and repeated predictions that a changing planet may indeed bring on unrest, mass
migration, and wipe out coastal communities. They were more interested in using the predictions to back-up their calls for
reductions in greenhouse gases. Republicans and Democrats could only agree on one point: that the report should be declassified;
Democrats, because it would give more details on specific countries at risk, and Republicans, because they believed the full report
would expose weaknesses in its arguments. Although the estimate was the result of a congressional mandate, DNI leadership felt it
was appropriate to study the possible consequences of climate change, Fingar noted. The DNI, despite one Republican lawmaker’s
assertion that the study distracted the agency from immediate threats such as terrorism, will do three follow-on national intelligence
estimates. One will be an analysis of the possible consequences of “mitigation” strategies that could be implemented to reduce
greenhouse gasses, Fingar said. Misguided energy policies may also weaken national security, climate change skeptics have pointed
out. “An economically weakened America would be less able to sustain its defense commitments,
keep the peace and remain vigorously engaged in the world,” said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute at the House hearing.
 Indigenous Communities

Climate change destroys native communities

AP, 8-19, 22, US Reaching out to Native Americans on Climate Change, Voice of America,
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-reaching-out-to-native-americans-on-climate-change/
6708045.html

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has developed a new strategy to better engage with hundreds of Native
American tribes as they face climate change-related disasters, the agency announced Thursday. FEMA will
include the 574 federally recognized tribal nations in discussions about possible future dangers from climate change. It has
earmarked $50 million in grants for tribes pursuing ways to ease burdens related to extreme weather. Tribal governments will be
offered more training on how to navigate applying for FEMA funds. The new plan calls for tribal liaisons to give a yearly report to
FEMA leaders on how prepared tribes are. “We are seeing communities across the country that are facing increased threats as a
result of climate change,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said in a conference call with media. “What we want to do in this
strategy is make sure that we can reach out to tribal nations and help them understand what the potential future threats are going
to be.” In
recent years, tribal and Indigenous communities have faced upheaval dealing with
changing sea levels as well as an increase in floods and wildfires . Tribal citizens have lost
homes or live in homes that need to be relocated because of coastal erosion. Some cannot
preserve cultural traditions like hunting and fishing because of climate-related drought. Lynda
Zambrano, executive director of the Snohomish, Washington-based National Tribal Emergency Management Council, said tribes
historically had to make do with nobody to guide them. For example, over 200 Native villages in Alaska have had to share one FEMA
tribal liaison. Or different tribes were told different things. So, nonprofits like the council tried to fill in gaps with their own training,
she said.

Climate change threatens poor and indigenous populations

Earth Justice, 8-22, 22, The Social, Cultural and Economic Implications of Climate Change,
https://earth.org/impacts-of-climate-change/

Indigenous and other communities of colour also tend to exist in more rural, low-income areas
with fewer resources to help them survive when disaster strikes. These areas are more often
affected by climate change, such as poorer air quality due to pollution. Because of the lack of
medical infrastructure, these communities are also at higher risk of developing health issues
that can be exacerbated by climate change. 2. Impacts of Climate Change on the World’s Poor
and Developing Countries Further adding to the notion that where and how someone lives can
make them more vulnerable, the world’s poor and poorer countries are also more heavily
affected by climate change. Understandably, people who live in poverty and impoverished
countries will have a harder time coping with the changes that are occurring due to climate
change. The governments in developing countries do not have the finances and the resources
to help their people and mitigate environmental disasters the way other cultures do. As such,
the people that live in those areas suffer greatly from pollution and lack of natural resources and
food, and they are at greater risk of developing illnesses and contracting diseases. Young people
and the elderly are also more vulnerable than anyone else because their immune systems and
other bodily functions are not as strong and, therefore, cannot handle more extreme living
situations. 3. Impacts of Climate Change on Urban Infrastructure Urban development and
infrastructure are crucial for the growth of any city and the well-being of its residents. So
when the systems that make up the infrastructure are impacted by climate change, it can
significantly impact development and the way people live their lives. The more populated and
dense a city is, the worse it gets. For example, extreme heatwaves can halt city-wide operations,
lead to power losses, and put more pressure on aging infrastructure like sewer systems, city
roads, and transportation systems. When this occurs, it costs the city money, can affect the cost
of energy, air, and water, and can impact the overall wellbeing, comfort, and health of the
people living in that area.

5. Impacts of Climate Change on Developed Economies and the Supply Chain Economies around
the world, but especially those that rely heavily on the supply and demand of goods and
services, such as developed economies, are also being impacted by climate change. Cities that
rely heavily on tourism services, for example, to support the local economy are seeing a
drastic decrease in the number of visitors. Take Colorado, for instance. Shorter winters and
reduced snowfall means not as many people will travel there to participate in winter sports
activities as they used to, which means less money coming into the state and certain cities. You
might also like: The Uncertain Future of the Olympic Winter Games Areas that are built around
agricultural production are also starting to see an economic decline, such as California’s wine
country, which relies on the production of grapes and maple syrup production in the Northeast.
The more crops are affected in these areas, the more it will hurt the local economy. As a whole,
numerous industries are being impacted by climate change with supply shortages that slow
down their production and impact their earnings. Though many companies and warehouses are
making sustainable changes to compensate, there is still not much they can do if their primary
product or materials to make their product is unavailable.

6. Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health

Worst of all is the detriment to human health. Minority cultures and poor populations are
most at risk, but everyone everywhere is starting to feel the impacts of climate change on
their health. Greenhouse gases are polluting the air, meaning everyone is breathing in more
toxins. Microplastics and other kinds of waste and toxins are polluting our water. Crops and
livestock are being affected, which results in food shortages. And rising temperatures and
heatwaves make us more vulnerable to certain health conditions, such as heatstrokes and skin
cancer.

Final Thoughts With so much of our world and our culture being impacted by climate change,
the question remains, can anything be done about it? As terrible and devastating as the effects
of climate change are and will continue to be, it is not impossible to reverse some of these
effects and mitigate further damage. Doing so, however, will take immense effort. Climate
activism and sustainability can no longer be viewed as just a problem for some and not for
others.
 Indo-Pak War
Warming causes Indo-Pak nuclear war
Lynas 8 – Journalist and Environmental Activist, Contributor – New Statesman, Ecologist, Granta,
Geographical, The Guardian, and The Observer, B.A. in History and Politics – University of
Edinburgh (Mark, Author, “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet”, 2008, National
Geographic Press, pg. 336)
With India particularly dependent on hydroelectric power generation, dwindling summer flows may
lead to blackouts and energy shortages during the hottest months of the year. Two of the Indus River's
major tributaries-the Chenab and the Sutlej-arise in India and flow into Pakistan. Both will also be suffering the
effects of deglaciation in their upper reaches. Conflicts may well break out between these two nuclear-
armed countries as water supplies dwindle and political leaders quarrel over how much can be stored
behind dams in upstream reservoirs.

Warming results in Indo-Pak water shortages

Sullivan et al. 7 (Gordon – former US Army Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Military Advisory
Board, M.A. Political Science at University Of New Hampshire, the rest of the Military Advisory
Board, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change”, CAN Corporation Report, 2007,
http://www.npr.org/documents/2007/apr/security_climate.pdf, p.37-38)
Adequate supplies of fresh water for drinking, irrigation, and sanitation are the most basic prerequisite for human habitation.
Changes in rainfall, snowfall, snowmelt, and glacial melt have significant effects on fresh water
supplies, and climate change is likely to affect all of those things. In some areas of the Middle East, tensions
over water already exist. Mountain glaciers are an especially threatened source of fresh water [3]. A modest rise in
temperature of about 2° to 4°F in mountainous regions can dramatically alter the precipitation mix by
increasing the share falling as rain while decreasing the share falling as snow. The result is more flooding
during the rainy season, a shrinking snow/ice mass, and less snowmelt to feed rivers during the dry season
[4]. Forty percent of the world’s population derives at least half of its drinking water from the summer melt of mountain glaciers, but
these glaciers are shrinking and some could disappear within decades. Several of Asia’s major rivers—the Indus, Ganges, Mekong,
Yangtze, and Yellow—originate in the Himalayas [4]. If the massive snow/ice sheet in the Himalayas —the third-
largest ice sheet in the world, after those in Antarctic and Greenland— continues to melt, it will dramatically reduce
the water supply of much of Asia. Most countries in the Middle East and northern Africa are already considered water
scarce, and the International Water Resource Management Institute projects that by 2025, Pakistan, South Africa, and
large parts of India and China will also be water scarce [5]. To put this in perspective: the U.S. would have to suffer a
decrease in water supply that produces an 80 percent decrease in per capita water consumption to reach the United Nations
definition of “water scarce.” These projections do not factor in climate change, which is expected to exacerbate
water problems in many areas.
 ME War
Warming causes water wars in the Middle East
Duchene 8 — Research Assistant at Penn State University (Lisa, 2008, “Probing Question: Are
water wars in our future?”, http://www.physorg.com/news131901803.html)
With rapid population growth, wasteful practices, and impending climate change, the situation is likely to get
worse. Water resources in semi-arid regions are expected to be especially hard-hit, warned the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 summary report. By some estimates, two-thirds of the world's population
will be water-stressed by 2025. During a year when many states across the U.S. are suffering some of the worst droughts ever, water
is a topic on people's minds. Will the prospect of a diminishing water supply result in serious geopolitical conflict? "Freshwater
resources are unevenly distributed around the globe," says Robert B. Packer, lecturer in political
science at Penn State, who studies international political economy and the causes of war. "While freshwater is relatively
abundant in Europe and much of North America, other regions of the globe, such as the Middle East, Central
Asia, and parts of West and Eastern Africa, face increasingly severe shortages ." According to the BBC, the number
of 'water-scarce' countries in the Middle East grew from three in 1955 to eight in 1990, with another seven expected to be added
within 20 years. "Of particular concern," said Packer, "are certain riparian basins that could explode
into conflict as sources of freshwater diminish. Conflict is more likely to occur where water can be seized and
controlled in addition to being scarce." Among Middle East countries, where every major river crosses at
least one international border, up to 50 percent of water needs of any specific state finds its
source in another state, Packer noted. "Hydro-politics already play a central role among states
in riparian basins, such as the Tigris-Euphrates, the Nile, the Jordan, as well as those sharing the
underground aquifers of the West Bank." Conflicts are likely to emerge as competition
intensifies to control river waters for hydroelectricity, agricultural use, and human consumption, he added. "Farms
and cities downstream are vulnerable to the actions and decisions of upstream countries that
they have little control over. This is exemplified in the tensions over the Tigris-Euphrates , where
Turkey commenced construction of a system of hydroelectric dams. Iraq and Syria have protested, citing the project would reduce
the rivers' flow downstream. Turkey's response to the Arab states has been 'we don't control their oil, they don't control our
water.'" To the west, the Nile has been the lifeline for Egyptian civilization dating back to antiquity. Nearly all of Egypt's 80 million
people live on the three percent of Egyptian territory that is the river's valley and delta. "For
Egypt the Nile is life, and its
government has voiced to upstream countries that any reduction of Nile waters would be taken
as national security threat that could trigger a military response," says Packer. "Nearly all
freshwater in the Israeli-occupied West Bank comes from underground aquifers," he added.
"Water access has become a major issue between Israelis and Palestinians." "Perhaps the
greatest of all modern Middle East conflicts, the Six Day War of 1967, began as a dispute over
water access," Packer noted. Israel built a National Water Carrier to transport freshwater from the Jordan and the Sea of
Galilee to the country's farming and urban centers. (The Carrier now supplies half the drinking water in Israel.) In 1965, Israeli
forces attacked a Syrian water diversion project that would have cut the Carrier's supply, and
prolonged violence led to war. "For Israelis, control of the Golan Heights is important
strategically in terms of controlling the headwaters of the Jordan River," Packer noted. The
effects of global warming and desertification also have impacted hydro-politics around the
world. In West Africa, rainfall has declined 30 percent over the last four decades and the Sahara is
advancing more than one mile per year. Senegal and Mauritania engaged in militarized conflict in 1989 across the Senegal River that
divides them, in part over changing access to arable land.
 Military Readiness

Warming destroys US military capabilities

Walt 18 (Stephen M. - Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at
Harvard University, 11-28-2018, "Global Warming Is Setting Fire to American Leadership",
Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/03/global-warming-will-set-fire-to-
american-leadership/)
Second, as noted above, climate change will impose significant costs on the U.S. economy. According
to the recent National Climate Assessment, the costs associated with climate change could reduce U.S. GDP by
as much as 10 percent by the end of the century. (That’s roughly twice the impact of the 2008 recession, by the way.)
The United States will still be a relatively wealthy country, of course, but not as rich as it would be otherwise. Third,
adapting to climate change won’t be cheap either. Low-lying areas are going to need
dikes, seawalls, storm sewers, and other major infrastructure investments. Some densely
populated areas may have to be abandoned, which means the need for new housing for tens
of thousands of people (if not more). Power grids will have to be strengthened or replaced, while bridges and
causeways will need to be elevated. No one knows precisely what all this will cost, but consider that the climate change
adaptation plan proposed by then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after Hurricane Sandy hit in 2013 was budgeted
at $20 billion. It probably wasn’t ambitious enough, the true costs would probably be higher, and that’s just one city (albeit a
big and important one). To be sure, some of this new infrastructure would need to be built anyway, even if the planet wasn’t
getting warmer and sea levels weren’t rising. And spending on infrastructure can boost productivity and provide lots of lower-
to-middle-class employment. Even so, the full cost of adapting to the environment of the late 21st
century easily runs into hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. So we
are facing a potential double whammy: Climate change will reduce economic growth in
various ways, even as we need to spend a lot of money trying to adapt to its effects. This problem might not be
too serious if the United States had a big sovereign wealth fund, or if the government were
running recurring budget surpluses that could be used to pay for these costs. But the
opposite is true: It has a ballooning budget deficit and level of public debt, and
recurring political gridlock has turned the budget process into an annual exercise in political posturing and
brinkmanship. My point, in short, is that the costs of adapting to climate change are going to put
enormous pressure on an already squeezed federal budget, and at a time when the U.S.
population is getting older, health care costs are rising, and tax cuts have become the
norm. My question, therefore, is simple: Where’s the money going to come from? If this scenario
is even partially true, then maintaining a defense budget and a national security establishment that dwarfs those
of all other states is going to be increasingly difficult if not politically impossible. Persuading the
American people to fund wars of choice, to protect distant allies of questionable
strategic value, or even to wage far-flung counterterrorism operations is going to be a
hard sell. The foreign-policy “Blob” may continue to resist a strategy of restraint, but fiscal realities may gradually impose
one on it anyway.
 Oceans

Climate change beyond 1.5 degrees destroys 90% of marine species

Zack Budryck, 8-22, 22, The Hill, Nearly all marine species face extinction if greenhouse
emissions don’t drop: study, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3611057-nearly-all-
marine-species-face-extinction-if-greenhouse-emissions-dont-drop-study/

Maintaining the status quo for greenhouse gas emissions could risk the extinction of up to 90
percent of marine species, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate
Change.

Researchers, led by ecologist Daniel Boyce of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova
Scotia, looked at some 25,000 species, including animals, plants, protozoans and bacteria.
Under a high-emission scenario, they determined that nearly 90 percent of those species will
be at high-to-critical risk across 85 percent of their distribution. This scenario involves an
increase of 3 to 5 degrees Celsius in global ocean temperatures by the end of the century.

About 10 percent of the ocean overall features ecosystems that are considered high-risk based
on a combination of endemism, climate risk and the threat of local species’ extinction, according
to the study.

In addition to the threat this poses to biodiversity around the planet, the results of the study
present a major threat to people in the global south, with the biggest danger to species native
to low-income countries that rely heavily on fisheries in the tropics and subtropics, according
to Boyce and his colleagues.

Meanwhile, reduced emissions — those consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement’s goals of
keeping warming below 2 degrees — would cut the risk for about 98.2 percent of the analyzed
species, according to the study.

The analysis is based on a combination 12 climate risk factors. Boyce and his team grouped
them under the broader categories of sensitivity, exposure and adaptivity.

“Our findings show a reduced climate risk for virtually all species and ecosystems under the low
emissions scenario,” Boyce wrote in a blog post for Carbon Brief. “Thus, sticking to the goals of
the Paris Agreement would have substantial benefits for marine life, with the disproportionate
climate risk for ecosystem structure, biodiversity hotspots, fisheries and low-income nations
being greatly reduced or eliminated.”

Oceans impact –

Schwaab, 6-26, 22, Eric Schwaab served as head of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and is currently Senior Vice President, Oceans with The Environmental Defense Fund.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504736-oceans-can-feed-our-future-world-if-
we-do-it-right/
COVID-19 driven impacts to the seafood trade have been nothing short of catastrophic for many fishing communities. In the United
States, where consumers rely on restaurants for much of their seafood, fishermen have scrambled to reconnect to consumers
through new pathways. Overseas, export markets have been disrupted, leaving many fishing dependent economies without needed
export pathways.
With increasing global population, growing climate impacts to oceans and
fisheries and millions already facing food insecurity around the world, the pandemic is a good
reminder of our need to look to the ocean for food security solutions. The world’s population will reach
nearly 10 billion by 2050 — just 30 years from now. Sustainably meeting food needs has profound implications for human health,
nutrition, economic well-being and global security. How we manage food systems of the future is also critical for environmental
sustainability. Food choices will even help determine carbon emissions and future atmospheric carbon levels. The fact is, food
from the sea already feeds much of the world. Fish today are an important source of protein
for more than 3 billion people and a vital source of the essential micronutrients that help
children’s brains develop and stave off disease and malnourishment for nearly 1.4 billion
people. For seafood to be a sustainable part of the solution, we must make progress in sustainable fisheries, enhance our
management systems to address shifting ocean conditions caused by climate change and ensure sustainable marine and coastal
aquaculture. In many parts of the world, we are off to a good start. As a former government official who has managed fishery
resources for the U.S., I have seen what it takes to succeed. Thanks to improvements in science and management, and
collaborations among fishing interests and governments across U.S. waters, many once-badly-depleted fish stocks are recovering.
Yet problems remain. Overfishing
and climate change are the twin “swords of Damocles” hanging
over the recovery and sustainable use of our fish stocks around the world . Climate change is shifting
distributions and productivities of critical species, scrambling the rules and putting successful management efforts at risk. We are
stuck in outdated systems for sharing the fish, which ignores the climate driven shifts already underway; the mackerel that once
swam in Europe’s waters have moved north to Iceland, and the cod that gave Cape Cod its name are steadily shifting to Canadian
waters. Moreover, climate change impacts are far more dramatic — and inequitable — in the tropics. The powerful fishing fleets
from the hungry North and East are plying the waters off Africa and the small island states of the Pacific. Now, as ocean productivity
declines due to climate change and as distributions of fish in the tropics shift toward the poles in search of cooler water, they leave
the world’s most fish-dependent and vulnerable people with even less of the catch. This story does not have to end badly. Recent
studies have shown that with limits to future climate-warming emissions, we can maintain our
current wild fish harvests and even improve them in some places if we make a few important
changes. We must continue to get basic sustainable management systems in place around the world. But that is no longer
sufficient. We also must fully integrate growing marine aquaculture opportunities in a global budget of food from the sea. For wild
caught fisheries, knowing that “past performance is not an indication of future results,” we cannot maintain catch limits based on
how fish used to behave, before the water heated.
 Ozone
Warming causes ozone depletion
Brandenburg & Paxson ’99 (John Brandenburg – plasma physicist, PhD in Theoretical Plasma
Physics at UC Davis, MS Applied Science at UC Davis, BA Physics at Southern Oregon University,
*Monica Paxson – award-winning author and expert of global warming, “Dead Mars, Dying
Earth”, p. 224)
One of the problems that makes any estimate of the real effects of: greenhouse warming so difficult is that the global system is so
complicated and so much of the greenhouse gas emission and absorption is mediated biologically. As has been discussed, an
important and unpredictable part of the biosphere affecting climate is humanity itself. But the rest of the biosphere presents
problems also. Because part of climate
change is biological, it can display enormous sensitivities and
unexpected couplings to other effects. This leads to nasty surprises—that global warming and
ozone hole are coupled, for example. Ice crystals in the stratosphere are the sites of catalysis for
ozone destruction. More thunderstorms in the polar regions owing to global warming increase the
ice crystal supply in the stratosphere.
 Oil Shocks
Warming makes oil shocks inevitable
Epiney 7 – Professor of International Law, European Law, and Swiss Public Law and Director of
the Institute for European Law at Université de Fribourg (Astrid, “Climate Changes as a Security
Risk”, May, 2007, http://www.wbgu .de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf)
The analysis shows that the region will be exposed to considerable social and political risks. The
anticipated increase in severe tropical cyclones is likely to have a negative impact on all the countries
in the region, particularly those of Central America. After Hurricane Mitch in 1998, it was estimated that the event had set back
More frequent
economic development in the most severely affected developing countries by several decades (IDA, 2006).
incidence of such extreme events is therefore likely to lead to permanent economic destabilization
in many parts of the region. This is all the more probable because, with few exceptions (Cuba, USA), the countries of the region have
few effective disaster prevention measures in place. Moreover, in many parts of the region there is a latent risk of conflict that
erupts repeatedly in armed disputes. Since weak governance structures are a feature of most of the countries of Central America
climate-induced environmental changes will markedly increase
and the Caribbean, it can be assumed that
the existing risk of conflict. The vulnerability of the oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico
represents a further important factor in regional and global crisis susceptibility. Short-term disruptions
of oil and gas production already have significant economic and sometimes political consequences.
Increased frequency of severe hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico could therefore have global economic and
political consequences.
 Proliferation
Global warming accelerates global proliferation
Schwartz and Randall 3 (Peter – Chair Global Business Network, and Doug – Co-Head Global
Business Network’s Consulting Practice, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security”, October 2003,
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm)
The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying capacity due to climate change are defensive and offensive. The United
States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their countries because they have the resources and reserves to
achieve self-sufficiency. With diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United States could likely
survive shortened growing cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be strengthened around
the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and
South America. Energy supply will beshored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally) alternatives such as
nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural
support, and disaster relief will be commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges
on the 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be commissioned to respond to flooding
along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this continuous state of emergency the U.S.
will be positioned well compared to others. The intractable problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting military tension
around the world. As
famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate
change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of
desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine
eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food,
water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain,
minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities
and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves
as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural processes.
Envision Pakistan , India , and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their
borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might
fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better secure their
borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation,
and transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven. In this
scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The United States and Canada may become one, simplifying
border controls. Or, Canada might keep its hydropower—causing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to
create one technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block – curbing immigration problems between
European nations – and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join
Europe. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling drives up
demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin . With a scarcity of energy supply – and a growing need for
access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear
proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their
national security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany
will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. Managing
the military and political tension, occasional skirmishes, and threat of war will be a challenge.
Countries such as Japan, that have a great deal of social cohesion (meaning the government is able to effectively engage its
population in changing behavior) are most likely to fair well. Countries whose diversity already produces conflict, such as India,
South Africa and Indonesia, will have trouble maintaining order. Adaptability and access to resources will be key. Perhaps the most
frustrating challenge abrupt climate change will pose is that we’ll never know how far we are into the climate change scenario and
how many more years – 10, 100, 1000 – remain before some kind of return to warmer conditions as the thermohaline circulation
starts up again. When carrying capacity drops suddenly, civilization is faced with new challenges that today seem unimaginable.
 Racism

Climate change disproportionately impacts the disadvantaged and racial

minorities

Gunn-Wright, June 14, 2022, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, 32, is one of the architects of the Green New
Deal and the director of climate policy at the Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based think tank,
Washington Post, How climate change and environmental justice are inextricably linked,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/06/14/climate-justice-green-new-deal/

Climate justice is essentially about recognizing the fact that the climate crisis disproportionately
affects people who are low-income, especially Black, Brown and Indigenous folks. They are
also the folks who are going to have the fewest resources to cope with the changes that the
climate crisis brings — whether that means not having the means to relocate if they are in a
place that is heavily impacted, not having the money to install solar panels on a home, not
having the means to pay for increased heating or cooling costs

Environmental justice is about the ways that the built environment has been created and carved
up in ways that expose Black, Brown and Indigenous folks to more pollution, more toxic sites,
more chemicals in water supplies. Putting them close to abandoned mines or where oil drilling
happens. The way that the built environment has been created to sort of cluster those harms
that are all consequences of fossil fuel industries. Fossil fuels are poisonous. And that has to go
somewhere. Legacies of systemic racism and residential segregation have been exploited to
create those environments.

The interesting thing about air pollution, in particular, is you can’t even say low-income
people of color because the fact is that even middle-income Black folks are exposed to more
pollution than lower-income White folks. Income and class are not even mitigating factors the
way that you’d think it would be. So environmental justice is very much about racism.

Is there some assumption that these communities are not aware of this, if even middle-income
Black communities are close to toxic areas?

Some of it is about awareness, particularly if the pollution is coming from just the way the built
environment is — you’re next to a highway or you’re next to a transit depot, or you live on a
major street where there are lots of trucks. They’re attached to pollution, but it’s not as though
it’s screamed from the rooftops.

The thing they take more advantage of is the histories of residential segregation and housing
discrimination. Middle-income Black folks are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher
poverty levels because of racial segregation. And those areas are more likely to be zoned for
industrial use. So you have legacies of red lining that have crowded people of color into one
area, and then that area is more likely to be zoned industrial, so it’s cheaper to locate these
facilities there. Or you’re next to a highway, so the home values are lower, so it’s harder to
move out of these places. All of these things make these areas more vulnerable.
These are the things that have to happen in an economy that is reliant on fossil fuels. The
factories have to be built. The oil refineries have to be somewhere. The trucks have to run
somewhere. The highways have to be somewhere. All of which has a negative impact on
public health. All of which on some level is poisonous. And so who is going to be listened to the
least when they are poisoned? Who can be harmed without consequence? Who is least likely to
be believed when they say, “My kid has asthma” or “My daughter has mysterious breast
cancer”? Whose lives are socially treated as less valuable? People of color.

And “power” seems like an important word.

One hundred percent.

Many predominantly White communities have often been effective at protecting their
neighborhoods.

Front-line communities, disadvantaged communities, those that are the most affected by
environmental justice, it’s not as though they aren’t doing anything. A lot of these communities
are highly organized; these folks are having to fight for decades, find partners, get outside
funding to run campaigns, partner with local universities, all sorts of things. I saw it firsthand
living in Detroit. The scale of what it required for them to say, “We don’t want this here. Stop
it,” is just leagues above areas where residents have more power. Not even comparable. But for
them to be heard, it takes megaphones on top of megaphones. What it means to be highly
motivated in these situations is just so different. You’re talking about running a campaign vs.
getting everyone to sign a petition.

You talk about how you can’t really understand environmental justice without understanding
racism and its impact — these issues that you are dealing with are the manifestation of racism.

Yes! Yes!

So then, this is how it shows up. Racism doesn’t necessarily show up as someone calling you
the n-word. It shows up in how a district is zoned or what they are willing to put in your
neighborhood. This is the evidence.

One hundred percent. It’s the evidence. It’s the manifestation. This is the form that it takes.

So, thinking about the urgency around environmental issues: Conflating environmental issues
and racism, does that help or hurt the environmental issues, in general?

Yeah, that’s a question I got a lot with the Green New Deal. People would ask me, “Why are you
talking about race so much? Why does that matter?” Some people might disagree, but I truly
believe, when describing the fossil fuel industry — and I think that all the evidence shows — it is
not possible to burn fossil fuels at the rate that we have without limit, if there is not racism
involved, because you have to have people who you can poison almost without consequence.
And so, with that in mind, you cannot address climate change if you are not also going to
address environmental justice and climate justice. Because otherwise you are just leaving in
place essentially the landscape that can again be exploited. You’ll have this happen again. You
are still leaving the tracks for the next crisis to come.
 Russia/Balkans
Climate change destabilizes Russia and the Balkans
The Guardian 7 – Newspaper (“Climate Wars Threaten Billions”, 11/5/07, CommonDreams,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5016/)
A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate
change. A further 56 countries face political destabilization, affecting another 1.2 billion individuals.1105 01 This stark warning will
be outlined by the peace group International Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict, this week. Much of Africa, Asia and South
America will suffer outbreaks of war and social disruption as climate change erodes land, raises seas, melts glaciers and increases
storms, it concludes. Even Europe is at risk. ‘Climate
change will compound the propensity for violent
conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer and less able to cope with the
consequences of climate change,’ the report states. The worst threats involve nations lacking
resources and stability to deal with global warming, added the agency’s secretary-general, Dan Smith. ‘Holland
will be affected by rising sea levels, but no one expects war or strife,’ he told The Observer. ‘It has the resources and political
structure to act effectively. But other countries that suffer loss of land and water and be buffeted by increasingly fierce storms
will have no effective government to ensure corrective measures are taken. People will form
defensive groups and battles will break out.’ Consider Peru, said Smith. Its fresh water comes mostly from glacier
meltwater. But by 2015 nearly all Peru’s glaciers will have been removed by global warming and its 27 million people will nearly all
lack fresh water. If Peru took action now, it could offset the impending crisis, he added. But the country has little experience of
effective democracy, suffers occasional outbreaks of insurgency, and has border disputes with Chile and Ecuador. The result is likely
to be ‘chaos, conflict and mass migration’. A different situation affects Bangladesh. Here climate-linked migration is already
triggering violent conflict, says International Alert. Droughts in summer combined with worsening flooding in coastal zones,
triggered by increasingly severe cyclones, are destroying farmland. Millions
have already migrated to India,
causing increasingly serious conflicts that are destined to worsen. In Africa, rivers such as the Niger and
Monu are key freshwater resources passing through many nations. As droughts worsen and more water is extracted from them
conflicts will be inevitable. In
Europe, most countries are currently considered stable enough to cope
with global warming, apart from the Balkans; wars have left countries such as Serbia and
Montenegro politically weakened. As temperatures rise and farmland is reduced, population
pressures will trigger violence that authorities will be unable to contain. Some nations on the
risk map, such as Russia, may cause surprise. ‘Moscow’s control of Russia as a whole will not be undermined by
global warming,’ said Smith. ‘But loss of farmland in some regions will lead to local rebellions like those
already triggered in Chechnya.’ Conflict triggered by climate change is not a vague threat for
coming years, he added. ‘It is already upon us.’
 Storms
Every new degree of warming increases the risk of a mega storm

Caroline Vakil, 8-13, 22, Climate change doubles likelihood of ‘megastorms,’ extreme flooding in
California: study, https://ktla.com/news/california/climate-change-doubles-likelihood-of-
megastorms-extreme-flooding-in-california-study/

The likelihood of a “megastorm” occurring in California has doubled due to climate change,
according to a new study published on Friday. The study, published in the Science Advances journal, found an increased likelihood of
runoff water occurring from harsher storms, creating the threat of debris flows and landslides later, according to a press release
from the University of California, Los Angeles. With every degree that the Earth gets warmer, the likelihood
for a “megastorm” increases, too, the study found. ADVERTISING Researchers looked at two different scenarios using
present climate models and high-resolution weather modeling. One scenario involved a long series of storms taking place during
what scientists predicted climate conditions would be like between 2081 and 2100. The other scenario predicted what it would be
like if those storms took place in the current climate, according to the release. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, storms that took
place toward the end of the century would see between 200 percent and 400 percent more runoff because of higher precipitation.
“There are localized spots that get over 100 liquid-equivalent inches of water in the month,” UCLA climate scientist and co-author of
the research David Swain said in a statement regarding the end-of-the-century scenario. “On 10,000-foot peaks, which are still
somewhat below freezing even with warming, you get 20-foot-plus snow accumulations. But once you get down to South Lake
Tahoe level and lower in elevation, it’s all rain. There would be much more runoff.” The
researchers also noted that
the state risks a $1 trillion disaster . In addition, parts of major cities like Los Angeles and Sacramento would be
underwater if the state endured the kind of flooding that took place during the Great Flood of 1862 in the current climate.
“Modeling extreme weather behavior is crucial to helping all communities understand flood risk even during periods of drought like
the one we’re experiencing right now,” Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources, said in a
statement. “The department will use this report to identify the risks, seek resources, support the Central Valley Flood Protection
Plan, and help educate all Californians so we can understand the risk of flooding in our communities and be prepared.” The
department contributed some funding toward the study.
 Terrorism
Warming causes terrorism
Hess 8 – AP Writer for International News (Pamela, “US report says global warming could have
indirect but wide-ranging national security impact”, 6/25/08, Lexis)
The Center for Naval Analyses report, written by top retired military leaders, drew a direct correlation
between global warming and the conditions that lead to failed states becoming the breeding
grounds for extremism and terrorism. "Climate change will provide the conditions that will
extend the war on terror," stated Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, who commanded U.S. and allied peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in
1996. "Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival , foster the conditions for internal
conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,"
the previous report said. "The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations,"

Global warming causes widespread terrorist resurgence

CNN 8 – News Source (“Global Warming Could Increase Terrorism, Official Says”, 6/25/2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html?
eref=rss_politics#cnnSTCText)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the
world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the
National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Climate change "will aggravate existing problems such as
poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political
institutions," Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian,
Central American and Central Asian countries." People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some
may turn to terrorism, he said. "The conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could increase the
pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity," he said. "Economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to
flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving refugees, many of
which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
 War

Climate change causes war [Quantification: 400,000 additional deaths]

Malavika Vyawahare, July 13, 2022, Monaga Bay, limate change amplifies the risk of conflict,
study from Africa shows https://news.mongabay.com/2022/07/climate-change-amplifies-the-
risk-of-conflict-study-from-africa-shows/

New research shows that climate change can amplify the risk of conflict by as much as four to
five times in a 550-kilometer (340-mile) radius, with rising temperatures and extreme rainfall
acting as triggers. Many countries most vulnerable to climate impacts are beset by armed conflicts, such as Somalia, which is
grappling with widespread drought amid a decades-long civil war; the research suggests the country is trapped in a vicious cycle of
worsening climatic disasters and conflict. Both too
little rain and too much rain are triggers for conflict, the
research finds: persistent rainfall failures increase instability over a broader geographic region
while extreme rainfall increases the likelihood of confrontations over a smaller area and for a
shorter time, the analysis suggests. The research underscores the importance of tackling climate change impacts and
conflict mitigation together because misguided climate adaptation strategies can intensify existing tensions. In October 2021, the
city of Guriel in Somalia’s Galguduud region became the epicenter of fierce fighting between the national army and a paramilitary
group that left more than 100 people dead and displaced another 100,000. In November, the government declared a national
emergency as drought intensified over 80% of the country, including in Galguduud. “You can run away from fighting, but you can’t
escape from the drought,” Deeko Adan Warsame, head of the women’s council of Guriel, told an International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC) official. New research
from Africa shows that fighting may, in fact, follow droughts. This
year, rains failed again in Somalia, the fourth time in two years. If drought conditions persist
for three years, it significantly increases the risk of violent confrontations, a study in the
journal Economía Política estimated. Climate change can amplify the risk of conflict by as much as
four to five times in a 550-kilometer (340-mile) radius. Somalia, a coastal nation in the Horn of Africa, is one of the most vulnerable
to climate impacts. In 2019, it was ranked 181st out of 182 countries on the University of Notre Dame’s ND-GAIN index, which ranks
climate adaptation readiness. Of the 25 countries most at risk from climate change, most are already dealing with violent conflicts,
according to the ICRC, which operates in conflict-wracked regions. There’s growing evidence that climatic change shapes the political
landscape, but social scientists are still piecing together how. Researchers from Spain’s INGENIO Institute, the University of Rome III
and the University of Urbino Carlo Bo in Italy dug into data from Africa from 1990 to 2016 in search of answers. They mapped how
far the impact of climate change on conflict reached and how the risk is spread over time. Rainfall failures tend to impact a broader
geographic area. Drier conditions cause widespread water and food shortages and sometimes force people to move. Somalia is
particularly drought-prone, but severe droughts are now occurring with unrelenting frequency. In the past 15 years alone, the
country was struck by three major droughts. In 2010-2011, the country witnessed its worst drought in 50 years. Then again, in 2016-
17. At the same time, climate scientists expect Somalia to receive abundant annual rainfall in the coming years, occurring in short
bursts of heavy showers. This year, too, downpours dumped rain that was lost as runoff without replenishing water sources or
nourishing pastures. Instead, such intense rain spells often erode the soil. Excessive rainfall, especially during the growing season,
can destroy local economies. However, the analysis found that the effects of flooding are more limited. It increases the susceptibility
to conflict for a shorter time and over a smaller area. Climatic changes weigh heavily on human lives, but they aren’t often at the
root of discord. Rather, they deepen existing tensions. Some pockets of the Sahel, the dry arid zone on the southern fringe of the
Sahara Desert, are particularly volatile because the harsh, dry conditions can quickly become unbearable. Confrontations
between pastoralists and settled farmers have erupted frequently because of competition for
resources like land and water. Pastoral herding practices are molded by the availability of water and fodder. However,
centuries-old traditions can falter in the face of significant shifts, like more frequent droughts and extreme, erratic rainfall. Herding
routes are woven from past knowledge about water and pasture availability. When rains fail and known pasturelands wither,
pastoralists are forced to venture farther from their traditional orbits. This
displacement can bring them in contact
with other nomadic groups with whom they don’t have long-standing ties. There are also many areas
where herders and farmers live side by side. Where land rights are ill-defined, confrontations often break out. In Nigeria, tensions
between Fulani herders, mostly Muslim, and predominantly Christian farmers aren’t rooted in environmental crises. However,
shrinking land available for farming and grazing is exacerbating age-old frictions. The likelihood of conflicts is higher in areas where
pastoralists and farmers live in close proximity, a report from 2020 found. A temperature rise of 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) can lead
to a 54% increase in the risk of conflict between farmers and herders. In areas where the two groups don’t cohabit, the risk falls to
17%. Pastoralists in Somalia Confrontations between pastoralists and settled farmers have erupted frequently because of
competition for resources like land and water. Image via Rawpixel. In a vicious cycle, conflicts almost always reduce communities’
ability to cope with climate shocks. Armed conflicts inflict lasting damage, for example by destroying institutions and infrastructure
that supply basic needs like water and health care. In the October attacks, Guriel’s main hospital was damaged and its second-
biggest hospital destroyed. According to the ICRC, a borehole that provided water for thousands of people was left unusable. The
new research shows that climate change’s toll is heavier than conventional estimates suggest.
An increase in the conflict risk for sub-Saharan Africa by 2030 could lead to 393,000 additional
deaths, a 2009 study reckoned. It also underscores the importance of tackling climate change and conflict mitigation
together. Some strategies to ease climate-related pressures can feed social conflicts, for example when climate finance is directed to
some groups and not others, or when NGOs provide alternatives to some communities and omit others.
 Water Shortages

It goes global---extinction. U.S. judicial management is key.

Gleick ’21 [Peter; 2021; MacArthur Fellow, Member of the US National Academy of Sciences
and Hydroclimatologist, B.S. from Yale University and M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of
California, Berkeley; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Water Recommendation for the New
Administration,” vol. 77]

Climate changes are already affecting US water resources, and the consequences for communities, health, and
the environment will worsen

The science is unambiguous, as shown in the long series of US National Climate Assessments, reports from the US
National Academies of Science, and other national and international scientific reviews (US Global Change Research Program 2020).
Rising temperatures affect both water supply and demand. Rapidly melting snow and ice mean
floods in spring, droughts in summer, and new threats to hydropower production . Rising sea levels threaten
coastal communities, groundwater, and wetlands.

Hurricanes, floods, and droughts – already the nation’s most destructive natural disasters – are getting worse. By failing to address
climate change, we threaten our economy, security, health, and the environment.

So, what can we do about it? A few key recommendations include supporting the ongoing US National Climate Assessments, as
required by law. These reports provide the best scientific assessment of the risks of climate change. The Biden administration could
also require all federal agencies to integrate climate resilience and risk mitigation into water programs, including infrastructure
investments, disaster planning, insurance programs, agricultural and industrial commitments, and military and national security
assessments. Funding and scientific advice is needed for states, counties, cities, and tribal communities to establish key partnerships,
develop climate change risk-reduction and resilience programs, and enhance protection from disasters.

It’s also long past time to revise and modernize the federal National Flood Insurance Program to increase protections from changing
flood risks and discourage development or redevelopment in vulnerable areas. The new administration should also develop federal
water- and energy-efficiency programs and greenhouse-gas emissions reductions strategies that reduce the energy cost of providing,
treating, delivering, using, and cleaning water, and boosting soil carbon – and President-elect Biden, immediately upon his
inauguration, should reaffirm US commitments to the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization.

Which brings us to the next problem.

Water resource problems pose threats to US national and international security and will continue to
be a source of intra- and inter-state conflict
In 2012, the US Intelligence Community released an assessment of national security threats associated with water resources
(Intelligence Community Assessment 2012). Among their conclusions: “During the next 10 years, many
countries
important to the United States will experience water problems – shortages, poor water quality,
or floods – that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract
them from working with the United States on important US policy objectives.” These conclusions
have unfortunately been borne out with water-based conflicts affecting US global interests in
countries around the world.

The 2014 US Quadrennial Defense Review also identified water resource issues as threat multipliers that
pose significant challenges for the United States and the world at large (Quadrennial Defense Review 2014). The
May 2017 statement of the Director of US National Intelligence to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence noted:
“[h]eightened tensions over shared water resources are likely in some regions” (Coats 2017).
Beginning immediately, the National War College system, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other defense
and intelligence agencies should conduct a series of integrated assessments to identify and analyze water-related threats to vital US
interests, including the vulnerability of US water systems to terrorism and cyber-attacks.
As we improve our understanding of the nature of the threats, US
foreign policy should place greater emphasis
on reducing the risks of water-related conflicts around the world. A variety of approaches to
reduce water-related tensions should be implemented, including international agreements and treaties,
technology based solutions, conflict-resolution institutions, and innovative water management
(Gleick, Iceland, and Trivedi 2020). These approaches hold great promise for reducing water-related
conflicts but have not yet been adequately adopted.

Here inthe United States, Federal agencies and Congress should assist local water agencies to
identify security threats to water systems and put in place improved physical barriers, real-time chemical and
biological monitoring and treatment, cyber-security strategies, and integrated responses.

And that takes us to our final problem.

The United States has no National Water Strategy, reducing the ability to understand water problems and define and implement
solutions

More than 20 federal agencies have overlapping and conflicting responsibilities for water management. As a result, current US water
programs are incomplete, haphazard, and inconsistent. Basic water data are not collected or analyzed. Fundamental science remains
undone. Regulations are inconsistent and outdated. Financial investments are haphazard and insufficient. Our freshwater resources
are used inefficiently and ineffectively. Continuing to neglect these water
problems will impoverish and sicken this and
future generations, destroy irreplaceable aquatic ecosystems, and threaten our economy and food
supply.
 Weather

Climate change causes severe weather changes

Daisy Dunne, June 16, 2022, Explainer: Can climate change and biodiversity loss be tackled
together?, https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-can-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss-be-
tackled-together/

Both climate change and biodiversity loss are already causing severe impacts for people.
Average global temperatures have risen by 1.2C since the start of the industrial era, while CO2
in the atmosphere is at its highest level in at least two million years, according to the world’s
climate authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This has caused an
increase in weather and climate extremes in every world region, the IPCC says. Just under half
of the world’s population – 3.6 billion people – already live in settings “highly vulnerable to
climate change”. Human-caused climate change is already influencing the severity of extreme
events, such as heatwaves, floods and wildfires. For example, the deadly heat sweeping India
and Pakistan in 2022 was made 30 times more likely by climate change. In addition, extreme
flooding in western Europe in 2021, which killed 220 people in Germany and Belgium, was
made up to nine times more likely by climate change.
 Need Policy Action
Individual action will not solve climate change, need government policies

HAL HARVEY AND JUSTIN GILLIS, 9-18, 22, LA Times, Op-Ed: Climate change is a big problem.
Citizens must demand many small solutions, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-
18/climate-change-citizen-action-building-codes-energy-efficiency
The world is on fire. The flames are hard to see, because we hide them so well. But you can hear them — in the whine of jet engines
as planes streak across the sky, in the rumble of power plants as they send electricity surging over power lines, in the purr of your
car engine as you drive to work. Every person living in a well-off country contributes to the conflagration. When you and your
neighbors turn on your lights at night, a coal- or gas-burning power plant somewhere will most likely increase its fuel use — just a
smidgen — to supply the electricity. We are starting to feel the consequences of these actions in climate change: heat waves worse
than any in recorded history, rising seas, a runaway increase in wildfires. Many people
are trying to help, in their own
ways — perhaps by buying a Prius or an electric car, recycling diligently, installing smart thermostats, eating
less meat, maybe contributing money to an environmental group. These actions are important, but by themselves they
are not enough. The world will not be saved by conscientious “green consumers” who decide, one family at a time, to drive less or
install solar panels on the roof. The
problem is just too big for that. Instead, we all need to become “green
citizens.” We need to focus, together, on a relatively small number of public policies that can, over time, bring
about sweeping change. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 passed by Congress will help by using tax subsidies to make
clean energy more affordable, which should speed the construction of wind and solar farms, hasten the switch to electric cars and
much more. But Congress did not clear away many of the obstacles that are slowing change. And a lot of those issues are under the
control of state and local governments. This means much of the work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will need to be done by
local leaders, spurred on by their citizens. A prime example is the need to improve our building codes. \\ For teens, the end of
summer often brings a mix of emotions. Returning to the routine and structure of school can be comforting, and it’s exciting to see
school friends again and start new classes. However, going back to school is a source of... Buildings are one of the nation’s largest
sources of carbon dioxide emissions. It will be impossible to meaningfully slow global climate change without cleaning up America’s
buildings, and the way to do it is to subject them to new rules. The tasks ahead of us are, in principle, straightforward: tighten the
shells of our buildings, old and new, and electrify everything that uses energy in those buildings, so that emissions fall as the electric
grid gets cleaner. In many regions of the country, natural gas is the customary fuel for space heating and the hot water that flows
from faucets. In some regions, homes are still heated with fuel oil or propane gas stored in tanks. When you count these fossil fuels
along with electricity use, buildings are the source of one-third of our national carbon emissions. More than 50 cities in California
and a handful of other states have adopted or proposed rules to ban or limit new gas hookups. The gas industry is fighting back,
running advertisements with gauzy pictures of blue flames to make gas look nostalgic and inviting, instead of like the huge climate
problem that it is. To resist expanding fossil fuel use, citizens must use their influence to counter this malign industry campaign.
Tightening the shells of structures is also crucial because even in places where energy efficiency has been a mantra for decades,
enormous amounts of energy are still being wasted in poorly constructed buildings. It’s not that hard to do better. Our buildings
need better insulation and proper sealing of air gaps, which solves much of the energy problem before the building is occupied. They
need better windows, situated properly. With different coatings, windows can absorb solar energy, which you would want in chilly
Minneapolis, or reflect it, for a place like Los Angeles. Roof overhangs and window orientation make a world of difference as well,
creating free heating and cooling for the life of the building. California already has statewide building standards that are among the
toughest in the country, but they need to get tougher. And cities are allowed to go beyond the state code, imposing stronger
requirements for energy efficiency. This is what citizens everywhere need to demand. How can motivated green citizens make sure
these basic design principles are followed in their communities? Across much of the world, building codes are updated on a three-
year cycle, with new, tighter energy requirements each time. But too many American states and cities are slow to adopt changes.
Your local city council needs a nudge from constituents. That means citizens need to dig in and learn a little bit of detail about when
the votes are coming up, and then speak up. When your town decides how strict the local building code will be — and how much
energy new buildings will be allowed to waste — you can bet many local builders will ply their influence to try to get the weakest
code they can. You, as a citizen, can ply your influence, too. The incremental costs of making a new building energy-efficient are
trivial, typically adding just a few percent increase to the total cost. And that upfront investment will be paid back many times in
energy savings over the life of the building. Building codes are just one example. How fast we can switch to electric cars depends in
large part on how fast we build car chargers, and state and county governments can have a huge influence on that. Millions of
American families put their children on dirty, smoke-belching diesel school buses every morning, even though clean electric buses
are becoming available. Why aren’t we marching down to the local school board to demand them? When new wind and solar farms
are proposed, naysayers turn out to fight them. Where are the voices of citizens who understand that we need to build clean energy
as fast as possible? Too many Americans feel paralyzed by the climate crisis. It is a daunting problem, but the idea that we as citizens
can do little about it reflects a poverty of imagination. If
you’re tired of feeling helpless with a sense of
impending doom, put on your marching shoes and make some political demands.

US climate leadership collapsing due to a lack of policy action. We are currently

at 1.1 degrees Celsius.

Bradley Dennis, July 15, 2022, Washington Post, U.S. climate promises hang in the balance as
Manchin upends talks,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/07/15/manchin-climate-biden-
paris-agreement/

As President Biden’s climate ambitions appeared to collapse in Congress on Friday, advocates

around the world
expressed alarm about how an absence of U.S. leadership could undermine the push to avoid
catastrophic warming of Earth’s atmosphere. Mohamed Adow woke up in Nairobi to the news that Sen. Joe
Manchin III (D-W.Va.) remains unwilling to support new climate spending, a stance that would all
but torpedo Biden’s push to rapidly cut the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution. The frustration and
disappointment Adow felt at the congressional gridlock had little to do with the president, and everything to do with the
implications for the planet if the world’s second-largest emitter does not change course. “People say this is a blow for Biden’s
climate plan,” Adow, head of Power Shift Africa, a think tank that lobbies for clean energy, said in a text message. “But it’s actually a
blow for the whole world, for people on the front line of the climate crisis, and it’s a blow for the American people who will not
escape the impacts of extreme heat, floods, sea level rise and storms.” Several experts warn that without new legislation, Biden will
be unable to achieve one of the core promises of his presidency: cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at least in half by the end of
the decade, compared with 2005 levels. A
report released Thursday by the independent research firm
Rhodium Group found that the United States is on track to reduce emissions 24 percent to 35
percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — significantly short of Biden’s goal of 50 to 52 percent.
“Those reductions are not sufficient under current policy to meet the U.S. stated climate target,” Ben King, an associate director at
Rhodium and co-author of the analysis, said in an interview. “So there’s still a big gap to make up.” Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.)
said in an interview that the administration must now take “executive actions that it has been holding pending” the end of the
legislative process. “That’s ended,” Markey said, adding that Biden officials can adopt policies ranging from limiting federal oil and
gas leasing to imposing stricter tailpipe emissions on cars and trucks. On Friday afternoon, Biden promised to exercise whatever
authority he has to forge ahead. “Let me be clear: if the Senate will not move to tackle the climate crisis and strengthen our
domestic clean energy industry, I will take strong executive action to meet this moment,” he said in a statement. "I will not back
down: the opportunity to create jobs and build a clean energy future is too important to relent." Even so, the
president’s
failure so far to secure more concrete action and funding from Capitol Hill has wounded U.S.
credibility abroad. “U.S. climate envoy John Kerry speaks well about what needs to be done by all countries, but loses
credibility whenever the U.S. is unable to deliver even the most modest actions that the U.S. government has promised,” Saleemul
Huq, director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, said in a text message. Huq said the
nation’s inability to take action will “definitely hamper” any trust other countries might have in U.S. promises when the world
gathers for another climate summit this fall in Egypt. “The United States of America is the single country that is most responsible for
accumulated global emissions that are now causing loss and damage around the world,” he added. “The fact that Sen.
Manchin can block the U.S. from even taking the bare minimum of actions speaks very poorly
for America.” As leaders gather for crucial climate summit, high expectations collide with uncertain reality Biden, who rejoined
the Paris climate accord after President Donald Trump became the only leader to withdraw from the global pact, took office touting
the historic investments he would seek in clean energy, and the jobs to be gained from shifting away from fossil fuels. The 2015
agreement aims to limit Earth’s warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels. Already,
the planet has warmed roughly 1.1 Celsius, and scientists say each additional fraction of
warming will bring only more climate-fueled catastrophes in the years to come . The world currently
is on a trajectory to blow past its climate targets without rapid and far-reaching changes. At a key U.N. summit in Glasgow, Scotland,
last fall, Biden stood before other world leaders and vowed that the United States — still the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter
behind China — would lead “by the power of our example.” In the months since, Biden has seen blow after blow to that vision. The
war in Ukraine has helped to fuel a global spike in oil and gas prices. The U.S. Supreme Court last month curtailed the Environmental
Protection Agency’s ability to limit carbon emissions of existing power plants. Unless Manchin ultimately embraces a budget-
reconciliation package that includes new spending on climate initiatives, his opposition would almost certainly put Biden’s
commitments only further out of reach. No Republican is willing to vote for a major climate package, which has left Democrats
reliant on the West Virginian’s vote. National
climate pledges are too weak to avoid catastrophic
warming. Most countries are on track to miss them anyway. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) bemoaned her
party’s predicament in an interview Friday. “We are at a moment when we need strong action to cut emissions, and one senator
should not have the power to stop us from doing that,” Smith said. “We had the opportunity in this moment to meet the challenge
of the climate crisis, to reduce carbon emissions, and to do so in a way that lowers energy prices, contributes to energy
independence, cleans up our air and allows us to save the planet.” A climate change protester holds figures depicting Sen. Joe
Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and President Biden on Capitol Hill on Oct. 20, 2021.
(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) On Friday, Manchin claimed that his comments to Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.) had been misinterpreted. The centrist senator told a West Virginia radio show that he hadn’t ruled out new climate
spending — he just wanted to wait to see whether the proposals would add to inflationary pressures. “I said, 'Chuck, until we see
the July inflation figures … then let’s wait until that comes out, so we know that we’re going down a path that won’t be
inflammatory and add more to inflation,” Manchin said, adding, “I want climate; I want energy policy.” Inflation soared in June,
continuing to climb at the fastest pace in 40 years across many sectors of the economy. But supporters of the climate package argue
it would actually lower costs for American consumers, such as by making it cheaper to purchase an electric vehicle or make energy-
efficient home improvements. From Africa to Europe to Asia, the latest indication that the United States could fail to live up to its
climate promises spurred reactions ranging from sadness to outright disdain. Several analysts pointed out that if the United States
fails to make the substantial investments in clean energy Biden supports, it risks losing the economic benefits that will come as other
nations shift away from fossil fuels. “This will dismay American allies and diminish further U.S. influence over what happens in the
energy economy across the rest of the world,” Joss Garman, a director of the European Climate Foundation, said in an email, adding
that with oil and gas prices rising compared with clean energy, “the transition is sure to continue apace, albeit now with China and
Europe more likely to seize the jobs and industrial benefits of this across key markets.” Luca Bergamaschi, executive director of the
Italian climate think tank ECCO, said European nations are facing many of the same short-term economic challenges as the United
States, but have continued to pursue long-term climate policies that will pay off over time. “Countries like Italy and Germany face
similar inflation rates and high costs of living but are increasing their climate spending to lower the dependency on fossil fuels, which
is a root cause of all these crises,” he said in an email. For all the attention on Manchin and what he ultimately will or won’t support,
Adow said the Biden administration should also be doing more to pull every lever it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
avoid locking in new fossil fuel infrastructure. Biden’s administration opened the door Friday to more offshore oil and gas drilling in
federal waters “The truth is Biden can, and should, be doing a lot more. He’s been handing out drilling rights for fossil fuels in New
Mexico and has laid the groundwork for drilling in Alaska,” he said. “The world needs the U.S. to show leadership on this issue. … We
have other countries around the world working to reduce their emissions, and we need America to join the fight, not work against
us.” This week’s apparent setback, which comes despite seemingly promising negotiations recently between Schumer and Manchin
over a broad economic package that would incentivize renewable energy and put more electric vehicles on the road, underscores
the crossroads that the nation faces on climate policy. That still unresolved choice could have huge implications, both for the
nation’s financial future and for the world’s ability to slow the warming that fuels climate disasters. “While
Europe and
China vie to lead the global clean-energy economy, the U.S. Congress is threatening to
abandon the race,” said Nat Keohane, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “These climate and clean-
energy investments are not just crucial to meeting our nation’s climate goals. They are vital to America’s economic future,” he said.
“Voters understand that, and express overwhelming support for clean energy. Businesses understand that as well, and are calling on
Congress to invest. The Senate should heed those calls. Our nation’s future prosperity is in the balance.” Biden also seemed to
recognize what lay in the balance last fall, when he spoke of the “profound questions” that face every world leader when it comes to
climate change. “It’s simple: Will we act? Will we do what is necessary? Will we seize the enormous opportunity before us? Or will
we condemn future generations to suffer?” he said then. “This is the decade that will determine the answer.”