DAVID WALLACE-WELLS is a scientist-reporter on climate who recently published a summary in the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/climate-change-warming-world.html
His summary incorporates more recent data showing that climate change has moderated from previous estimates of 4-5 C. to 1-2 degrees. Over time this will likely result in a "migration" of plant and animal species (including humans) away from equatorial to more polar regions. "Everything will move — ecosystems, too. At two degrees, according to one study, more than 10,000 plant species would lose half their habitable area. Every place in every part of the world would essentially trade its current climate for a hotter one" The effect is to alter climate to more (current) equatorial by roughly 12 miles per year or about 600 miles is half a century. Though measured in European studies, similar effects can be expected in the US, where more "heat waves" and increased temperatures are expected. While these are called "heat waves" right now, they are more properly understood as variations in climate that make previously temperate climates more tropical and equatorial. The transient high temperatures are the newsmedia's "heat waves". These temperature shifts will mean enormous relocations of animal life, mostly away from the Equator and toward the poles because animals and especially humans have more limited resources for tolerating extreme heat than extreme cold.
The changes in temperature are a "fact", not the reported dramatic changes, but the gradual shift in averages. How humans respond to this is unknown. Predictions of migrations and chaos reflect current events, and short term adjustments. How many will move, or use new adaptations, or simply not reproduce in those regions, is unknown. His statement: "Regardless of the figure, mass climate migrations will become a fact of life." is not a fact but a reflection of current trends, which does not include factors his summary discusses. (Gaia Vince has written the book “Nomad Century.” describing climate migration that doesn’t have to look like refugee camps and border walls.)
The ability of different regions to adapt is complex. Wallace-Wells emphasizes the economic capacity of developed nations to create infrastructure that modifies climate effects, giving them an advantage. "wealth will enable many places to adapt." And most developed nations are already in temperate zones. But less developed regions have less commitment to high consumption and energy demand lifestyles, and might be able to accommodate to more modest changes. And the evidence of current lifestyles suggests that affluent people are less able to adapt their lifestyles.
Some obvious changes include turning away from cars and toward biking and green space, but also public transportation with low carbon methods. Major reconstruction of buildings will be needed to adjust to environmental change. This is both a dramatic expense and a giant infusion of capital into the economy. How it is paid for (charging the present or future generations) is unknown.
The differential impact on temperate and equitorial regions is inherent in world geography, but how different regions manage change is not. And the costs of adaptation may remain local or be more globally distributed. Statements like "the continent (Africa) is already losing up to 15 percent of its economic growth because of climate change" should be viewed with caution as they are based on current economic systems, and do not account for changes.
The changes to the ocean, including coral reefs, will be dramatic, but here too the question is relocation of species as much as loss of species. The greater risk of overfishing, and other human activities, should be addressed as part of the danger to the oceans.
The rise of sea level, (and how fast) has varied predictions. The I.P.C.C. has given a median projection of just 47 centimeters, though other estimates are several multiples of that. And scientists worry about “tipping points” — that just two degrees of warming might trigger a feedback loop in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that can’t be reversed. But these are worries not observations. "Greenland alone contains enough ice to raise sea levels by more than 20 feet; the Antarctic, considerably more. But little of that melt would come this century." The emphasis on sea level rise is the result of the concentration of urban centers of population along coasts, which will continue but shift inland with the rise. These changes will have dramatic infrastructure expenses, again with unknown methods of payment, but they are issues of population movement and engineering, at relatively slow speed, and could be easily accommodated if individuals respond.
The issue of food is an example of not just climate but economic inequality. Different regions of the world already have very different capacity for food production, and people continue to live and reproduce in regions with poor and diminishing capacity. Sending food supplies to sustain living in unsustainable places is stupid. A global effort is needed to facilitate migration to realistic regions of food production, and accept that persons who don't move will not survive.
New agricultural methods are likely to moderate climate change impact, and reduced consumption of certain foods would also help. Pongamia grows beans similar to soy, producing protein and oil, a company based in Alameda, Calif., has begun to plant it widely for the first time in the United States. But this does not address the unrealistic distribution of humans to limited regions of production.
Much has been made of increasing "Weather disasters". These are both "events" and "news stories". The occurrence of fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and sustained high temperatures are measurable time limited events. They only become "disasters" when news media report the effects on humans living in regions that are vulnerable to them. Here too, as in the situation of food, human decisions impact the role of weather and climate, and must be adjusted to accept the changes. "Weather events that impact humans" only increase if humans continue to stay in places where they occur, thinking they can overcome Nature. “return time,” the period between catastrophes like hurricanes and heat waves should be understood as human decisions, not definable weather events. The events do become more frequent as in heat waves, or the Australian fires, mega-storms, and severe hurricanes, but infrastructure changes and human relocation can deal with the impact of most of them.
Wallace-Wells gives special attention to the need to alter electric power generation to replace fossil fuels. No one seems to consider the possibility that usage of electric power might change. It helps to realize that the US was not completely wired for electricity until after WWII, that people lived by limited light sources and the sun until then, and still do in some regions. That the surge toward "electric cars" and transportation increases the power demand, while decreasing the transportation load of carbon fuels, and the overall impact is not known. Human based transportation power is only realistic if the distances are smaller, i.e. residential/commercial relationships are closer. This can be facilitated by internet communication, and work-from-home activities, especially if servers and other electronic infrastructure becomes less energy intensive. (Bitcoin mining shows that some solutions generate more problems.) The emphasis is on finding ways to reduce consumption of electric power and especially avoid using electric power to offset the increased heat of climate, by construction and other techniques. No one seems to realize that the dependence on increased use of electric power is not inevitable, and meaningful lifestyles can occur with reductions.
It is in this framework that the goals to increase production of renewable energy sources should be viewed. One can envision "zero balance energy accounting": the amount of energy received on earth from the sun and gravitational forces is utilized by various techniques to provide the energy needs of the population, with minimal use of nuclear, or fossil fuel sources in special situations. This is a fantasy, but it illustrates the need to consider both sides of the equation:
energy demand = energy sources
The importance of emphasizing energy sources that do not depend on fossil fuels is not disputed. Fossil fuels created a convenient transitional method for accessing more energy for development, and will remain important for certain tasks. But at the same time, an overall strategy for reduced use of energy is needed. Is being awake after the sun goes down an important contribution to human life and productivity? The failure to consider lifestyle adjustment is typical of a society driven to excess.
Events like deforestation of the Amazon, melting of
carbon-rich permafrost in the northern latitudes and the instability of
the ice sheets might represent accelerated effects on change and must not be ignored (but are not controllable by known human interventions). But his conclusion is balanced: "A lot, then, depends on perspective: The climate future looks darker
than today but brighter than many expected not that long ago. The world
is moving faster to decarbonize than it once seemed responsible to
imagine, and yet not nearly fast enough to avert real turbulence. Even
the straightest path to two degrees looks tumultuous, with disruptions
from the natural world sufficient to call into question many of the
social and political continuities that have been taken for granted for
generations. "
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/visualization-climate-change-future.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/climate-change-warming-world.html
