Triage: the process for sorting victims into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate treatment, when limited resources must be allocated.
The delay in acting to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases means that more and more anthropogenic climate changes are now unavoidable. Climate impacts are already evident and they are going to get worse and worse. It's the "new normal." In coming years, we are going to be faced with increasingly difficult decisions in what must now be called climate triage -- choices about who and what is going to be protected and saved, versus abandoned and lost.
The recent decision to open the Morganza spillway and other relief valves on the Mississippi River is a clear example of climate triage. Officials had a difficult choice: intentionally divert part of the Mississippi to flood a 3,000-square-mile area affecting more than 25,000 people, or risk even worse catastrophic flooding in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
Society is going to be faced with more and more such decisions.
As sea levels rise, communities will have to make choices about where to build costly seawalls and what coastal properties to completely abandon. As temperatures rise, the poor and elderly will face higher risks of heat deaths if adequate resources to protect them are not made available. Increased flooding on some of the world's major rivers will threaten communities over larger areas, and more frequently, than in the past. Some agricultural lands will have to be abandoned because the climate will no longer be favorable or limited water resources will be diverted to more valuable demands. There has already been talk about "endangered species triage" in California as conflicts over water resources, land management, urban and agricultural priorities, and ecosystem protections grow, with the explicit acknowledgement that climate change will make these conflicts worse.
A recent study by the Pacific Institute on the impacts of sea-level rise on the California coast identifies half a million people already living in areas that are at risk of future flooding, hundreds of miles of roads, billions of dollars of homes and businesses, airports, wastewater treatment plants, power plants and much more. These assets cannot possibly all be protected given the level of financial resources and institutional will that will have to be found and mobilized. What will be protected and what will be abandoned? And who decides?
A few marginal, irresponsible voices still desperately deny the reality of climate change. A few argue that it's happening but due to natural causes, and a few argue that while real, climate change isn't going to be bad or else it will be too expensive to fix. But Bob Dylan said it best: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Just look outside, as scientists have done. "Normal" is over. Climate change is now influencing every weather event.
Here's the new normal, from just a tiny set of the recent scientific papers and observations on the growing risk of extreme events: record heat waves; record flooding; more intense rainfall; disappearing Arctic ice; growing atmospheric water vapor; disappearing Antarctic ice; disappearing Arctic lakes; retreating permafrost; and Greenland shedding ice.
The insurance sector is already changing how they view, and cover, climate risks, acknowledging that climate change is already influencing weather-related catastrophes, as noted in a post on Climate Progress. Munich Re (one of the world's leading reinsurers) has said:
"The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge".
The triage decisions along the Mississippi were part of long-term plans for the river -- we knew that some communities living in the floodplains were at risk. But climate triage decisions are going to come as a surprise to many because we've denied or ignored the risks for so long. Getting on board with that kind of thinking and planning needs to become the new normal.
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
Global Warming- Science - The New York Times
Climate change: the UK must end its double-dealing
Schwarzenegger Was Good on Climate Change!
Opinion: climate change and a question of loyalty
Jon Huntsman Shocks Right By Refusing To Deny Climate Change Is Real
Study of ancient fossils shows how climate change could affect wildlife
Yes, the scientists tell us that the earth has warmed 0.7C in the last 150 years. Of course the fact that this is since the end of the "Little Ice Age" shouldn't temper the alarm.
"The recent decision to open the Morganza spillway and other relief valves on the Mississippi River is a clear example of climate triage."
What were the CO2 levels in 1927? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927
"As sea levels rise..."
They are rising at a rate of 0.8 inches per decade. I'm sure people will have time to relocate.
Mr. Gleick, you are the reason people are turning a deaf ear to "climate change".
I think what is unique about AGW is how its impacting weather events: drought, floods, etc. The Amazon got a 500 year drought in 2006 (a drought so bad it should only occur once in 500 years). Then, last year, it got another one. The climate is unravelling much faster than anyone predicted, with regard to weather events. That portends much, much worse events to come. So, in addition to the costs associated with these events, we are definitely going to have to shoulder the additional cost of dealing with AGW, or weather will get much, much worse. The effects of AGW are turning out to be a worst case scenario, one that is alarming even the 'climate cassandras'. Many of these would dismiss concerns about Arctic methane release this century, but now I worry about it much more. THAT has the potential to be a human extinction event. We better get control over AGW, and soon, or the worst case scenario could play out before our eyes.
Weather events are not indicative of climate change. My guess is that the droughts in the Amazon are being caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, not AGW.
The worst case scenario is that the earth will rise another 7/10ths of a degree, plants will grow faster and produce more food, the growing seasons will get longer, and the tropics will expand bringing rain to the southern Sahara. Of course we will both be dead long before then, so I'm not going to worry about it.
Hmm. Anybody in particular come to mind?
Sorry, had to clear my throat.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/04/all-weather-is-local-2.html
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-climate-catastrophe-policy-triage.html
They can be the first to go. At least something positive can come out of this!
Albeit, I am making my comment based in part on the small sampling of comments here.
However, I suspect that many of those deniers posting here have no idea what Peter Gleick's credentials are because they know little and read little about science.
Most Americans with a small interest in science know the Gleick name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
(I have long been a fan of James Gleick whose biography on Isaac Newton I checked out just yesterday.)
And? Don't leave us hanging ...
Only if you believe in that hysteria.
The Little Ice Age ended about the mid 1800s. The global average temperatures have risen slightly since then. That much is true and beyond debate. And of course the temperatures have risen, or the Little Ice Age wouldn't have ended.
The rest is mere hype and hysteria for political purposes. Rather like the failed "Coming Ice-Age" hysteria of the 1970s, but that one never took off.
Look up the definition of hysteria and then try to reconcile it with that statement. Good luck.
"The delay in acting to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases means that more and more anthropogeÂnic climate changes are now unavoidablÂe."
They said less snow, now we have more snow.
They blame earthquake in japan of global warming.
The tornado outbreak was blamed on global warming.
The polar ice caps are still here...
You get it? Every natural event. What ever happened to natural variability?
Oh? Who said that?
"The tornado outbreak was blamed on global warming"
Oh? Who said that? Climate change affects all weather, which was noted by many. I never heard anyone say that without global warming there would have been no tornados. Who did?
"The polar ice caps are still here..."
Are they as big as they used to be? If the current trend continues, how long will they be there? This is like the guy who falls out of his office window and says "So far, so good" as he passes the second floor.
When the US decides whether to spend money for Malaria prevention, that's triage. Malaria, carried by mosquitos, is heavily influenced by climate regardless of whether it's man-made climate change or otherwise. However, that hasn't prevented the US from prohibiting DDT despite its proven effectiveness in wiping out mosquitos: Silent Spring saw to that. We use it to wipe out the worst in the US, then, having a fit of conscience, prohibit the developing world from using it.
When the US funds dams and water treatment projects through the World Bank, they are participating in triage. They decide what projects should be funded and which should not.
When coastal cities are wiped out by tsunamis (caused by Earthquakes, which have no relation to climate change), we have to decide whether to rebuild. Climate triage.
Mr. Gleick's great fault is that he suddenly buys into the insurance industry's claims on climate change. Who benefits from legally establishing climate change? The insurance company, which can then try to get reimbursed by governments or businesses. It's a financially self-serving position, and thus can't be relied upon as an objective judgement. It's disappointing to see environmental advocates fall for it, because they usually recognize corporate self-interest for what it is on the surface. I guess they are blinded by convenience.
Let's see...
Clean air, clean water, secure future, energy independence, jobs, improved health, end to oil wars, increased innovation ...
Who could possibly benefit from all that?
Now your turn, who benefits from the status quo??
Greens are always the first to shout that you cannot trust corporations when it comes to dealing with the environment or climate change. The reason is simple: they have a vested financial interest on seeing things one way. Ergo, no judgement from them is free of bias.
Similarly, insurance companies have a vested financial interest in claiming climate change is real. Insurance companies (and re-insurance companies, like Munich Re) would like nothing more than to be able to pass the buck from disasters on to governments or to the owners of power plants. It doesn't matter to them whether climate change is real: they should state that it is so in order to get other people to pay the bills that the insurance company would otherwise be stuck with.
How can Greens maintain that you CAN'T trust companies in the first example but that you CAN trust them in the second? Greens who do so come across as hypocritical (or ignorant). Don't fall for it, Greens: by recognizing the opinions of one company, you are only justifying the arguments of "big oil" and other companies.
P.S. - the above argument is logically consistent whether you side WITH those who believe OR DENY climate change. You can't have your cake and eat it too.