The Basics of Climate Change
In our first installment, we answer the basic questions you probably have about climate change, but were afraid to ask
LET'S GO, WITCHES!
To kick things off, We're going to start with a discussion of the basics of climate change.
One of the things that I have always said is the greatest obstacles to people being more active around climate change is that people feel incompetent on the subject. It's big. It's "scientific" and there are all kinds of climate experts out there. People feel insecure that they don't know enough about the subject to really talk about it.
If you were to stop ten people in the street and ask them to explain climate change, the first nine would probably say they couldn't. The tenth would likely start to explain, get about halfway through, and realize they know way less than they thought they did.
The first best thing to do to become more effective around climate change is to develop a baseline understanding of what it is. SO, we're going to cover some of the basic questions that people have around climate change:
What is Climate Change?
What Causes it?
How do we fix it?
And the one that people are often scared to ask,
Are we fucked?
So, without further ado, let's begin...
First question:
What Is Climate Change?
The phenomenon is the same, even though over the years different terms have gone in and out of favor for various reasons. You've heard it called "climate change" "global warming" "Climate crisis" or "global heating" like a lot of language choices, which term you use often tells you more about the person than about the thing they are referring to.
Whatever you want to call it, this is about the earth's carbon cycle and how we've gone and messed it up.
All y'all in your middle school biology class heard about the earth's carbon cycle. You may not remember it that way, but I bet you remember learning about photosynthesis.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants use sunlight, water and carbon dioxide to create oxygen and glucose, converting light into chemical energy. The glucose is used by the plant as food, and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.
This process of photosynthesis is the whole reason that planet earth became habitable for us humans to begin with. At one point, the earth was covered with toxic gases like methane and other bad things. Photosynthesizing organisims grew and eventually produced enough oxygen to react with the methane gases and cleared the skies to make earth's atmosphere the oxygen filled paradise that our planet has enjoyed for millennia and which makes our life here possible. And it stays that way in part because of the carbon cycle.
Carbon is constantly moving in reservoirs in and around the planet -- from the atmosphere to the oceans to the plants and other living organisms and to the soil. And by and large, for most of our planet's existence, the earth's natural systems have balanced things out, so that excess carbon that gets released to the atmosphere is eventually processed and stored in plant matter and oceans and soils, and the planet's lovely atmosphere and habitable climate remains intact.
Here's a great graphic from UC Berkeley that shows you how complex this carbon thing can be: https://ugc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CarbonCycleSystemModel-scaled.jpg
But with the advent of industrialization, humans began burning fossil fuels at a relentless pace, releasing tons and tons of carbon dioxide (and other harmful gases like methane) into the atmosphere, overwhelming the planet's natural carbon storage abilities. All the excess carbon acts like a big old blanket over the surface of the planet, retaining heat that would otherwise escape as part of the normal functioning of the earth's atmospheric systems. It also speeds the addition of water vapor to the atmosphere, which also adds to the warming of the planet.
Through our actions that have disrupted the balance of the earth's natural atmospheric systems, we've already caused the average temperature of the earth to rise 1.8 degrees Farenheit or 1.0 degrees celsius from pre-industrial levels. This change in temperature causes other changes in planetary systems, particularly to our atmosphere and to our climate worldwide. This altering of the atmospheric systems from the warming of the planet is what we call climate change. It's causing heat waves, increased severity and frequency of storms, wildfires, and many other disruptions.
What Causes it?
So the simplest answer to the question of "what causes climate change" is the fact that there is more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere than the natural carbon cycle can handle.
But of course, it's also more complicated than that. There are lots of categories of human activity that result in too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We all know that we're pumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere by driving cars and trucks. But a big chunk of CO2 emissions also comes from corporations and industry and all those factories that belch filth into the sky.
Then there's agriculture -- farming, between the methane from farming animals to the nitrogens that get applied to soil to fertilize it, contribute about 10% of the US GHG emissions, and that doesn't include fossil fuel usage on farms.
And then there's the storage side of the carbon equation -- we're losing lots of forests and other types of landscapes that store carbon. Deforestation of the Amazon, the planet's largest forest, and therefore largest forest carbon sink, is happening at an alarming rate -- we lost almost 9% of the Amazon between 2001 and 2020. Mostly to cattle ranchers and other agricultural development. Illegal logging is estimated to be between 15% to 30% of the current timber trade, and is happening mostly in tropical forests, undermining their carbon storage ability.
Things are further complicated by the fact that CO2 is not the ONLY gas that increases global warming. There are a suite of gases, commonly called "greenhouse gases" that also increase that "blanket effect" that warms the planet. Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and CO2 are considered the big 3, but ozone, hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perflourocarbons (PFC's) Sulfur hexaflouride and halogenated compounds that contain flourine, chlorine or bromine are also part of the problem.
This is part of what makes addressing climate change such a resource intensive endeavor, requiring a whole host of agencies and information -- there are many, many sources of GHG emissions, and a lot of things destroying available carbon sinks.
To give you an obscure example of a carbon sink you might not have thought of: Recent studies have estimated that larger whales can store up to 33tons of CO2 each over the course of their lifetimes. in 2023, 825 whales were killed in objection to the global moratorium on whaling, representing about 27,000 tons of carbon that will either not be sequestered or that will be released by the killing and surfacing of the carcass. To put that in perspective, a typical passenger car in the US emits about 4.6 tons of carbon per year assuming average fuel economy and driving distance.
And this illustrates another problem with climate change --just about any problem you have on the planet can be turned into a climate problem if you let it. It's a lot like the Dad in My Big Fat Greek Wedding who says "every word is a Greek word!" Nearly every problem we have can be turned into a climate change issue if you let it.
Those of us from "climate world" have learned to shorthand it all, because obviously this is A LOT to wrap your brain around. Generally speaking, if you break down the problem by activities, GHG emissions are at about 30% industry, 30% electricty production, 20% agriculture, and the rest a mix of transport and buildings.
You'll se a lot of people want to focus on countries as opposed to activities. This is the "But what about China" distraction. Yes, if you look at most of the graphics they will show you that China produces nearly twice the CO2 as the US on an annual basis right now. This does NOT account for history, of course. The US, of course, as one of the first nations to industrialize on a massive scale, has historically been one of the largest emitters, and cumulatively is the largest GHG emitter, and will remain so even with 2030 projections. Yes, even with all the growth of emissions in China.
In the end, I would encourage you to focus on the activities, mostly because the most direct route to reducing emissions is to focus on the activities producing those emissions, as opposed to focusing on the countries. The former is about the pragmatics of actually achieving results. When you focus on the countries, it ends up being more about blame. We're here to promote achieving results, not placing blame.
How do we fix it?
No surprise, we also have a shorthand for mapping out the solutions. And that's important because the whole "every problem can be a climate problem" thing can result in a lot of distraction and diverting of energy and resources. It helps to have a really good sense of the parameters of the solutions set.
The solution to climate change, put most simply, is two fold:
We need to restore balance to the carbon cycle so that we can stop the warming being caused by the excess carbon, and
We need to address the impacts of the warming that has already occurred.
According the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that means limiting planetary warming increase to 1.5 degrees celsius. Translated into something practical, that means we need to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. "Net zero" means we are not emitting more greenhouse gases like CO2 than the planet is capable of sequestering.
So in total, that means that there are only three types of activities that are really moving the needle on climate change. It's a nice little three legged stool. If the solution does one of these three things, then it is moving the needle on climate:
Does it reduce the overall amount of GHGs that are being emitted?
Does it increase the capacity to sequester CO2 that is already present in the atmosphere?
Does it help communities address impacts from climate that are already happening or are worsening?
That sounds really simple. But there are some notes I want to make here.
First and most important, for those of you who have been waiting for me to talk about climate justice, here's note number one, and this applies to all three legs of the stool:
I am going to state unequivocally that if someone offers an idea to solve for climate change that does not have equity built into its design and part of its operating principles, it is not a viable climate solution.
What do I mean by that?
Climate change is not about saving the planet. Let's be real clear that no matter what we do to the climate, the planet will be just fine. The planet doesn't need us to survive. This is about saving us as a human species. And any attempt to save humans that tries to give preferential treatment to one group of humans over another isn't about saving humans, it's about selfishness and privilege. It's about someone trying to say "i'm getting mine, and fuck you." That is unacceptable. Period. It's also unnecessary. We don't have to exacerbate the inequities among humans on this planet in order to save humankind. In fact, if we do this right, we can use the opportunity we have to reinvent how we support our existence on this planet and make it so that we all get to thrive and live well. EVERYBODY.
At every turn, with every idea we look at, we need to be asking ourselves the necessary questions that make sure we're being just and equitable -- is everyone who is affected getting a seat at the table? Is one group being asked to bear more than their fair share of the burden? Is everyone being offered a chance to reap the benefits? Are we sharing resources or hoarding them?
This is the human family, people. We're not leaving anyone behind. Any suggestions that we should is people being lazy and lacking vision.
Okay, now for note number two: this is about how we allocate resources and effort with regards to the first two legs of our three legged stool of climate solutions -- emissions reduction and increasing capacity for carbon sequestration, what we in climate world call MITIGATION. "Mitigation" is one of those words you probably want to remember. We use it a lot in climate world.
Climate world has done the research around what's needed to get to net zero and what's feasible. Here's what we know. To reach net zero by 2050, about 75 to 80 percent of the solution is going to be about reducing emissions. Increasing carbon sequestration, particularly from natural carbon systems, even under the most optimistic of scenarios, is only going to be able to cover about 20-30% of what's needed to get to our 2050 goals.
What does that mean as a practical matter?
It means that we are never going to be able to plant enough trees to save ourselves from this mess without doing the work of reducing emissions. Don't get me wrong here -- we need to plant a whole lot of trees and we need to protect natural landscapes. Not just because of climate change, but for a whole host of reasons that would keep us here all day.
Supporting and bolstering natural carbon sequestration -- what big green calls "nature based solutions" -- is absolutely necessary to support life on earth and it's necessary to support reducing emissions. It's also important for that third leg of the stool in terms of dealing with climate impacts. But make no mistake, reducing emissions is the lion's share of the work to stop further damage from climate change.
But there are people who will try to flip the script -- who will try to tell you that fighting climate change is all about nature and supporting landscapes and planting trees. And they do that because it's easier to convince people to plant trees than it is to tell them to install solar panels or switch to heat pumps or use low till and no-till farming on their crops. People like trees. And I get it. I'm a pagan and a witch. I fucking worship nature and I love trees. But we are not going to plant our way out of this crisis.
There are also folks out there who are looking at technology based carbon sequestration methods. If you're a geek like me, you know that there are plenty of techbros who are sure that they can use technologies like Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage and Direct Air Capture to deal with carbon emissions, and we can continue to pollute all we want, because with technology, we can just make all that excess carbon go away like magic!
And as magical practitioners, you and I both know it's not that simple. While both CCUS and DAC are interesting technologies, with a lot of potential, neither is at a level of reliability or scalability to manage our current emissions problem. They will likely be useful for certain industries that are hard to decarbonize, like steel manufacturing, but they are not a silver bullet that's going to save us from doing the work of substantially reducing emissions. They are likely to be part of the solution, but that doesn't mean they can solve all our problems.
Don't fall for the hype. The mix on solutions is 80 percent emissions reductions, 20% nature based solutions and carbon sequestration. Period. Anyone who tries to tell you we can sequester our way out of this is not working with the facts.
A third and final thing worth noting is that a lot of people will also lean super hard into that third leg of the stool -- what people in climate world call "climate adaptation," which means dealing with the impacts of climate change and making communities "resilient" against climate impacts.
Adaptation and resilience are super important. No question. Ask Asheville. Ask Los Angeles. Ask any community that has been through a major climate disaster and they'll tell you they want to be better prepared for the next time, and they wish their communities had been better prepared. Talk to communities in Banglandesh and in Vanuatu who are looking at the impending demise of their entire way of life because of sea level rise. I've talked to people who know their home will no longer be there in 50 years because My sister in law thinks she needs a Chevy Suburban to drive her 2 kids from school to swim practice and back to the house again. It's sobering.
But focusing on adaptation and resilience without addressing emissions and the carbon cycle, mitigation, its like putting bigger and bigger bowls under the leak in your roof and thinking that's solved all your problems. Only putting resources and effort into adaptation, without engaging on mitigation, is basically setting yourself up on a very large and expensive hamster wheel.
Adaptation and resilience is popular, because who doesn't want to help communities that are in harm's way? But when people only talk about climate impacts, without talking about doing something about the root cause, that's a problem.
Are we fucked?
Last year, WWF's Climate and Energy Practice created a video that was released during the Olympic Games, which talked about how climate was breaking too many world records. The video garnered millions of views. The campaign received attention in dozens of countries worldwide. You can watch it here:
We've also started hearing reports from outfits like Copernicus Climate Change Service that in addition to 2024 being the warmest year on record (for the second straight year in a row) it's also the first calendar year when the global average for the year exceeded the 1.5 threshhold.
And so people are legitimately asking whether it's too late to do anything. Whether we're just fucked.
If you think that, you wouldn't be alone. According the researchers at George Mason and Yale who are the experts on this, a little over one in 10 Americans agree with the statement that it's too late to do anything about global warming. A little over one in ten Americans say they have experienced anxiety and depression symptoms for at least several days out of the last two weeks because of global warming.
But what do the climate science experts say?
So let's back up a second. Who are these experts in the first place? When I say experts, who am I talking about?
THE experts in climate science most widely recognized around the world would the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC puts out a comprehensive Assessment Report about every 5 to 7 years. the latest, AR6, was released in March of 2023. AR Seven is slated for release in 2029. Who are the scientists that make these reports? A Bureau of scientists who are elected by the representatives of 195 UN member governments, then select hundreds of experts who go on to write the report for that assessment cycle. I say report, but it's actually a series of reports that covers the physical science of climate change, climate mitigation and impacts and adaptation, as well as a synthesis report that serves to pull the whole assessment together. It's an intense process with a LOT of oversight both from within the IPCC/UN organization, and from civil society groups. Some of my colleagues in my old job were IPCC authors, some even lead authors.
The IPCC is the gold standard of climate science, and their assessment reports are highly trusted.
Yes, you can access the reports and even the underlying data online at their website.
So what does the IPCC say?
Well, remember that goal of limiting the rise of the earths average global temperature from pre-industrial levels to no more than 1.5 degrees celsius? Yeah, we're likely to bust that limit, to overshoot it. Right now about 90% of the IPCC models predict we will go into overshoot.
BUT. Breaking that threshhold does not mean we have to stay above 1.5. While the IPCC models say we will likely hit overshoot before 2050, we can bring ourselves back in line with 1.5 limits by the end of the century. But the longer we go above 1.5 and the further above we go, the worse it gets. And there are potential lasting impacts from overshoot, things that we could lose that we may never get back. So that means that every tenth of a degree of warming matters.
So let's be very clear, this is not a plane crash situation where the pilot has told you to assume the position and wait for the impact because there's nothing more to be done now that breaking the 1.5 threshhold looks to be a sure thing. This is an all hands on deck thing where we're all going to have to pitch in to fend off the worst of the impacts.
And luckily, your fellow Americans are in it with you. Let's go back to that work being done by Yale and George Mason. There is not a single state in America, red or blue, where less than 55% of adults think global warming is happening. The national average is 72%.There are only two states (North Dakota and West Virginia) where the majority of adults are not worried about global warming. (and they were damn close at 49% and 47% respectively). If you go to the Yale Climate Opinion Maps, and you look at your state, you'll likely be very surprised at how many counties in your state (even ones that are deep red) are concerned about climate change, understand that it is caused by man-made emissions, and want to see CO2 regulated as a pollutant, and want to see more being done to address the climate crisis.
Nationally about 67% of your fellow Americans say the climate issue is at least somewhat important to them. And 62% of your fellow Americans feel a personal sense of responsibility to help reduce global warming. And at least a third of Americans over the last 12 months have rewarded a company they see as taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their products. And 63% of Americans agree that it it's not too late to do something about global warming. Most Americans believe that the actions of one person can make a difference. You are not alone in wanting to fight and believing we can fight and win.
And we can win. More than 70 percent of todays emissions can be eliminated by readily available technologies, according to the UN. According to some experts, we have the technology to address more than 90 percent of the climate crisis. The biggest problem isn't that we don't know how, or don't have the means. Our problem is we need to just get up off of our asses and do it.
Asking whether or not we're fucked is the wrong question. We're only as fucked as we let ourselves become. And contrary to what you're hearing from politicians and the news, most Americans really do want to step up to the climate challenge. I won't lie. It's bad. But it doesn't need to stay that way.
So no, I don't believe we're fucked. But we will be if we don't start acting on what we know we are concerned about. How we do that will be the topic of future installments.
Until next time, witches, Show up for your planet, and keep it cool.