Peak Resources: adaptation

Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Life on Earth is under enormous stress from a rapidly changing environment and climate. A recent study in Nature show how human societies are already impacted by a changing climate in at least 467 different ways. For example, increased water evaporation and increased air capacity to hold moisture, due to warming, have lead to extreme drought in places that are commonly dry (California, Middle East and Southwest Asia) that have lead to higher risk of heatwaves and wildfires. Warmer ocean waters enhances evaporation and wind speeds thus intensifying downpours and the strength of storms and risk of flooding from storm surges aggravated by sea-level rise.

The cumulative changes from a disrupted climate are so massive and the speed at which they are occuring so rapid, only comparable to when a meteorite killed the dinosaurs som 65 million years ago, that many species will have a hard time adapting. Species must either tolerate the change, move, adapt, or face extinction. We know that species on land are moving polewards by 17 km per decade and marine species 72 km per decade. And just like terrestrial mountainside species are moving upslope to escape warming lowlands some fish species are driven deeper as the sea surface warms. This in turn impacts human well-being and is already forcing people to migrate.

The current socio-economic paradigm has not changed in accordance with occuring biophysical changes and will not be able to handle the mounting pressure unless it adapts or transforms into something new. A rapidly changing world cannot be navigated by concentrated, rigid, hierarchical, short-term social systems that resist change and tries to maintain status quo. We know this to be true of all living systems, including human societies. Civilisations fail to adapt to changing environmental conditions because they try to maintain high levels of sociopolitical complexity (large armies, bureaucracies, social stratification, occupational specialisations) and focus on expansion instead of dissolving into decentralized, smaller, more flexible and innovative units that are able to respond to change more effectively. That's why corporations, with global scope, are doing better than nation states. And why local communities and municipalities are responding more effectively to changes than governments.

However, the limiting conditions, resource availability, under climate change make adaptation in place difficult since entire regions are becoming increasingly uninhabitable. Thus forcing people to migrate, just like other species do. This in turn puts extra pressure on national governments as social tensions increase over remaining resources. States that fail to provide essential services for their citizens eventually foster uprisings and risk internal conflict and collapse. We already see this occuring in the Middle East (Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Isreal/Palestine, Egypt).

Unless governments take seriously the need for fundamental change of the sociopolitical system they will be unable to handle to shift to a post-carbon society able to cope with climate change. Trying to expand and pile on further sociopolitical complexity to the system will not work.

Climate Hazards

Annual global temperatures from 1850-2017. The colour scale represents the change in global temperatures covering 1.35°C. Credit: Climate Lab Book, 2018

The Earth System

Earth is a complex dynamic system. Earth system dynamics can be understood in terms of trajectories between alternate states separated by thresholds that are controlled by nonlinear processes, interactions, and feedbacks. For example, over the past 1.2 million years Earth has remained in a state of glacial and interglacial cycles. The current temperature change at 1,2°C above a preindustrial baseline has already pushed Earth out of the next glaciation cycle.

Furthermore, Earth is a water planet and incredibly inert. The time lag between cause and effect, between the heating and the final change in temperature, is large. The full warming effect of a large emission pulse may not be felt for several decades or centuries. As a result, the currently observed change in temperature represents only a part of the eventual expected increase in temperature resulting from already released greenhouse gas emissions.

Exactly where a potential planetary threshold, between a livable state and a hothouse state, might be is uncertain. Steffen et al. (2018) suggests 2°C as the critical limit, stating that passing two degrees could trigger tipping elements in the Earth System that could cascade, triggering further tipping elements, causing rapid warming beyond human control.

Thus, actions taken over the next decade could significantly influence the trajectory of the Earth System for tens to hundreds of thousands of years and potentially lead to conditions that would be inhospitable to humans and to many other species.

Main point: Earth is tracking a hothouse pathway

Earth System Sensitivity

How the climate system will respond to increasing CO2 levels depends on time-scale and which feedbacks we consider. Taking into account fast feedbacks such as clouds, water vapour, snow cover change, and aerosols we get a climate sensitivity of about 2-4.5°C to a doubling of CO2. But this does not include slow longer-term feedbacks such as ice sheet disintegration, changes in carbon cycle (e.g. permafrost thaw), vegetation cover changes, or changes in oceans ability to store carbon. If we include all feedbacks, both fast and slow, we get a Earth System Sensitivity of 3-6°C.

Estimated temperature changes from fast and slow feedbacks. Source: Schmidt, 2016

Studies of past climates in Earth's history show that long-term feedbacks play an important role in Earth's overall climate. For example, during the mid-Pliocene some 3-4 million years ago, when global mean temperatures were about 3-4°C warmer than preindustrial and sea levels 10-25 meter higher than today, CO2 levels peaked at 450 ppm. Our current concentration levels stand at 410 ppm CO2, but temperatures have only risen about + 1,2°C, so Earth is likely to warm up at least to similar levels eventually. And we would over millenia have sea-level rise of up to at least 10 m.

The reason why most people don't talk about ESS is due to the fact that its presumed to take centuries or millennia for these slow feedbacks to kick in. But the issue now is that the rate of change is many times faster than any natural rate in Earth's history. Only comparable with catastrophic rare events such as the meteorite strike that took out the dinosaurs some 66 million years ago. This means that longer-term “slow” feedbacks such as melting of ice sheets and changes in permafrost carbon stores are starting to occur now, much quicker than expected, and will likely impact humanity during this century.

Which means that on top of some more warming from rapid feedbacks that has yet to be realised due to thermal inertia we also face the consequences of slow feedbacks already coming into play. These biogeophysical forces are incredibly strong and could become dominant in driving the system. Thus limiting the range of potential future trajectories.

Main point: Earth's climate is more sensitive to forcings than standard scenarios of future warming assumes

Biogeophysical Feedbacks

Some of the key negative (dampening) feedbacks such as carbon uptake by land and oceans and reflectivity by ice and snow that have maintained the Earth system in favourable conditions are weakening. We are now witnessing ever more systems close to or passing a threshold, tipping point, causing abrupt change. The challenge with tipping points is that they're often easiest to identify in retrospect.

For example, Arctic sea ice crossed a tipping point in 2007 and is now in terminal decline and could be gone during the summer by 2040 or earlier. Due to the loss of reflective ice the dark oceans are now absorbing more energy, in turn accelerating regional warming, further melting ice and snow. It also influences jet stream patterns causing more extreme weather events in northern latitudes. The loss of Arctic sea ice has also flipped the Barents Sea from acting as a buffer between the warmer Atlantic and colder Arctic ocean to now being essentially an extension of the Atlantic.

A warmer Arctic also leads to thawing of permafrost in the region. Before believed to be a rather gradual process, new studies show abrupt (decades) thaw in Alaska and Siberia due to the formation of thermokarst lakes. Releasing CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere and accelerating warming.

The Greenland ice sheet is now melting rapidly, the ice caps melting irreversibly. Accelerated surface melt has doubled Greenland's contribution to global sea level rise to 0.74 mm per year since 1992–2011. The interior ice sheet could cross a tipping point slightly under 2C warming. Global sea level rise has accelerated to 4.8 mm/yr.

The Amundsen Sea sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has already crossed a tipping point and is melting irreversibly. This will likely trigger a collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet on decadal time scales. Leading to at least 1 meter sea level rise this century. Partial deglaciation of the East Antarctic ice sheet is likely for the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, contributing to about 5 metres of sea level rise in the first 200 years.

Melting freshwater pouring into the Atlantic has slowed down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) that transports heat from the Gulf of Mexico to Northern Europe. Slightly cooling northwest Europe and piling up heat along the southeast waters of the US. This in turn increases temperature differentials between tropical and sub-polar waters that can drive stronger storms.

Main point: Abrupt changes are already occurring in the climate system, passing 2°C would likely prove catastrophic

Human feedbacks on the system

As I have explained above, the climate system is much more sensitive to even small perturbations than most people think. Another way of showing this fact is to look at human impacts on the climate before industrialisation.

Since the rise of agriculture, human activities on Earth have played a role in shaping ecological and climatic conditions. There is good evidence to suggest that the rise of agriculture actually had a positive (amplifying) feedback on early climate, hindering a new ice age to occur.

Atmospheric CO2 and CH4 increases during the last few millennia are anomalous compared to preceding interglacial periods. The same time period when agriculture spread across the continents and emitted greenhouse gases by clearing forests for crops and pastures, domesticating livestock and burning crop residues. Suggesting that emissions were large enough to warm climate and prolong the natural interglacial warmth.

Ruddiman et al. (2016) show evidence for what seems to be a trend brake in naturally falling CO2 and CH4 concentrations some 6000-5000 years ago, towards increasing concentrations most likely driven by anthropogenic forcing.

We know that agriculture spread across the world during this time period. Agrarian civilisations started to flourish along the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus and Yellow River some 7000-5000 years ago. Cultivation was dependent on flow and ebb cycles that in turn relied on seasonal rains and melting snows packs in the mountains. These formed the conditions for production of surplus food (energy) which allowed societies to expand and grow more complex.

Ruddiman and colleagues show how the development of irrigated rice paddies in Asia and widespread livestock domestication some 5000 years ago coincides with increases in methane emissions. Just like today, forests were cut down, vegetation slashed and burned to make way for agriculture all across Eurasia, Africa and the Americas. This generated CO2 emissions which in turn impacted climate.

Archeological data records a shift from forest cover to more open vegetation in northern and central Europe that began som 6000-5000 years ago and was complete by the start of the industrial era. Similarly, early deforestation was likely caused around the Mediterranean by extensive land use by Greek and Roman civilisations. In Britain and France, forests had already been reduced to near-modern levels by 2500-2200 years ago.

East central China had widespread forest cover until 8000 years ago, followed by a persistent decrease especially after 6000 years ago. Archaeological sites, proxy for population density, in central China increased thirtyfold between 8000–7000 and 5000–4000 years ago. By 4000 years ago, coal had come into use as a fuel source in the Yellow River Valley because of lack of wood. Deforestation of southern China during the spread of rice agriculture after 5000 years ago added to the ongoing CO2 increase.

In India, sedentary farming and clearance emerged between 5000 and 3500 years ago, with especially rapid settlement expansion on the Deccan Plateau and in the Ganges plains.

All this evidence provides support for the idea that large-scale deforestation led to a rise in CO2 during the middle and late Holocene. Many models have missed this because they assume low population numbers and small forest clearance per person and thus show low emissions. But this doesn't fit with historical evidence of larger per capita forest clearing 2500-1000 years ago than during industrial times. Probably because land use was inefficient and required large amounts of land but became more intensive over time as agricultural methods changed.

The simulation above indicates much greater deforestation during the millenia preceding the industrial era in agreement with pollen evidence. In contrast, standard reconstructions that assume small constant per capita clearance during preindustrial times show 40-80% of forest cover still persisting in Europe by the year 1800. Meaning massive deforestation must have taken place within the last 200 years to explain current low forest cover. But this doesn't fit with historical evidence of pervasive reforestation in western and central Europe since 1800, not deforestation.

Main point: The Holocene climate was partly a consequence of human feedbacks on the climate system

Climate Change Adaptation

Changes in temperature and precipitation have always impacted people by affecting what they could and couldn't grow to harvest food (energy) for survival.

The climate stabilised about 7,000-5,000 years ago coinciding with the flourishing of agrarian civilisations along the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus and Yellow River. Cultivation was dependent on flow and ebb cycles that in turn relied on seasonal rains and melting snows packs in the mountains. These formed the conditions for production of surplus food (energy) which allowed societies to grow more complex.

But agrarian societies have always been vulnerable to climatic changes. Sudden cooling events or extended droughts caused widespread famines and sometimes collapsed entire communities. Especially vulnerable were those who relied on single crops or undermined the ecological base for survival for example through intense deforestation.

For example, a sudden cooling that happened around 3,700 to 3,000 years ago greatly influenced populations in Asia. The most dramatic changes were seen in high latitude and high-altitude areas in Mongolia and the Tibetan Plateau. Crops started to fail and widespread famine took hold. This forced people to migrate, shift to more cold resistant crops, or turn to pastoralism. Cooling temperatures also affected Northern China between AD 291-360, a time when the Chinese capital was relocated from Xian to what is now Nanjing, in the south. Again, people would have had to adapt by migrating, changing crops, herding cattle or trading. It was not an easy process and lots of conflicts arose.

The difference now is of course that the rate of change is much more rapid and that its becoming hotter, not colder, which humans have had less of an experience adapting to. Furthermore, there are no virgin lands left to move to when one region becomes uninhabitable, the world is full and most ecosystems severely degraded. Using migration as a tool for adaptation doesn't work that well anymore. We have also become heavily reliant on just a few crops and undermined diversity by eradicating species. This makes our current civilisation very vulnerable to a changing climate.

Main point: Humans can adapt to a changing climate but this time the rate of change is much more rapid and migration is not a good option

We know from our, humanity's, ancient history on this planet that rapid climatic changes ruin agrarian societies. Especially vulnerable are societies that mismanage their resource base and/or live on the margins, for example, in extremely arid regions that are wholly dependent on predictable precipitation patterns. But even societies that manage to survive periods of, say, extreme drought may suffer as they become increasingly fragile to any perturbations to the system.

A changing climate is not bound by any borders and often occur within whole regions or on a global scale. When highly populated areas undergo climatic fluctuations it often cause people to migrate in search of better lands. Which can collapse other, already fragile, societies as the extra pressure from the inflow of people pushes the system over the edge.

This is demonstrated in the German documentary How Climate Made History (2017), above. I highly recommend it and other videos about climate on the youtube channel Hazards and catastrophes. More informative than American or British counterparts.

What can we learn from history?

Well, first of, Homo Sapiens hunter-gatherers, a generalist species, could adapt easier to extreme environmental conditions than neanderthals which were restricted to specific food sources, methods of hunting, or climates. This ability may have been the result of humans cooperative nature. It had nothing to do with brain size or intelligence.

Second, a relatively stable mild climate and fertile land, with ample and reliable sources of freshwater, plant and animal life, where instrumental to rise of agriculture. People settled and surpluses (food energy) from agriculture could be stored, freeing up time from simply collecting food, and giving rise to specialist occupations. It also gave rise to hierarchies, inequality, as some had more of a surplus than others. Humans also started worshipping the sun (source of energy).

Third, thriving agricultural civilisations were more vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions than nomadic peoples. When the climate changed rapidly and rainfall became unpredictable or rivers dried out people were forced to move in search of new lands to survive. Especially if they managed their lands unsustainably, degraded the land, and were more vulnerable to shocks.

Fourth, in highly populated regions such drastic changes in climatic conditions impacted civilisations both directly and indirectly. High pressure on the land from a large population made societies more susceptible to shocks. As people migrated from poorer lands into other richer areas they tended to destabilise societies that could have survived longer if not for the extra pressure. It also led to unrest and conflict over remaining resources.

Fifth, when civilisations collapsed people spread out to look for resources and knowledge was lost. What we call a dark age occurred.

Implications for modern society

Climate change is occurring rapidly and it is uncertain to what degree we will manage to adapt. We still live in agrarian type societies and are dependent on predictable rainfall, some regions more than others of course. Desertification and water scarcity is a major problem in many parts of the world already. Many societies are extremely fragile to shocks due to overexploitation and land degradation. Crop yields are falling. Seas are rising. Taking for granted that fossil fuels will save us is not a good idea for several reasons. Some societies may succeed better than others in managing their resources but will be vulnerable in other ways, e.g. to climatic changes, financial shocks, trade shocks and/or migration flows. Today there are no new/empty regions to populate once other areas fail. Resources are limited on a global scale. Tensions over scarcity are rising. Some societies, like Syria, have already collapsed. While others, where most of the remaining resources are located, are having issues with immigration. It will be a very difficult journey for humankind. But as history shows, even if civilisations collapse, humanity survives. We are a tenacious species.

Wishful thinking is today so prevalent that it even has infected the brain of people who are trained not to be biased, scientists. I mean sure, economists have always been blissfully ignorant and wrong in their predictions but what I’m talking about is more widespread. It's a deep denial among the people researching our most critical issues: climate change and energy limitations.

You see it in the media when scientists discuss oxymorons like “green growth”, or proclaim that we can “decarbonize our entire economy within 20 years”, or that “agriculture will save biodiversity”, or that “lab grown meat will solve our food problems” and so on. It's nothings but grasping at straws in a world that is on fire. Such delusional statements are more about belief systems and identities reflecting values than science. It's also because climate scientists have been told by behavioural psychologists not to scare people as it may hamper action. But isn't it odd that the profession that claims to be devoted to curiosity and truth seeking wants to restrict exploration of future possibilities and censor people due to how it might come across to others?

Our climate reality is harsh. Most scientists tend to underestimate our predicament because they are too conservative, not the other way around. But now it's becoming clear, predictions made by oversimplified climate models have underestimated the changes we're already witnessing due to climate change. Earth, the biosphere, ecosystems and human systems such as the economy are dynamic complex systems and their behaviour is nonlinear. A model that does not include critical feedbacks in the system will not be able to accurately predict results in the real world. This has now become obvious as real world observations about the sad state of our climate is pouring in. Climate change is accelerating.

Sea ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be completely gone summertime some time in the coming years (2022?), accelerating global warming further. Ice and snow reflect about 80 percent of the Sun’s energy back into space while the darker ocean and land will absorb 90 percent of that heat. The albedo effect due to vanishing sea ice is already responsible for about 25 percent of global warming (Pistone et al. 2014). Greenland shed about 280 gigatons of ice per year between 2002-2016 and the island’s lower-elevation and coastal areas experienced up to 4 meters of ice mass loss (expressed in equivalent-water-height) over a 14-year period (NASA, 2018). Accelerating rates of ice loss also implies accelerated rates of sea level rise. Certain cities will have to be abandoned. In ten years prior to 2016 the Atlantic Ocean soaked up 50 percent more carbon dioxide than it did the previous decade, speeding up the acidification of the ocean (Woosley et al. 2016). And the list goes on and on with increasingly worrisome observations.

With an increase of carbon emissions of 2% in 2017 (Carbon Brief, 2017), the so called “decoupling” of economic activity from emissions is not yet making a net dent in global emissions. Even if we start reducing emissions now it's not going to be enough to prevent dangerous climate change since there is about a decade lag between emissions and resulting warming (Ricke & Caldeira, 2014). We have already (95% probability) gone past the 2°C warming point/UN target (Raftery et al. 2017), and are likely headed towards 4-5°C (Steffen et al. 2018). That's because the Earth system is dynamic and is more likely to continue warming until it stabilises at another point, which in the Earth's past occurred at about 4-5°C warmer than pre-industrial levels. By the way, it is generally accepted that a 5 degree rise in temperature is not compatible with human civilisation as we know it. At the same time, perhaps a complete collapse of civilisation could prevent the worst climate change outcomes (Garrett, 2012). But no one is going to promote or talk about that in public. Even if diminishing returns on resources, especially oil, likely will shrink our civilisation in the near future, whether we like it or not (Turner, 2014).

No one likes either outcomes of this predicament and that's why most experts are basically just arguing over different options of removing carbon from the atmosphere through geoengineering. Using machines to suck out carbon, however, is not feasible both in terms of cost and scale and could cause more harm than good. Current technology would have to be scaled by a factor of 2 million times within 2 years. That's just not going to happen. Biological approaches to carbon capture such as planting trees, restoring soils, holistic grazing, and growing seagrass and kelp appear far more promising.

Anyway, the real issue for ordinary people is how to adapt to a world that is increasingly hostile while using less energy? Not wasting time listening to myths about "green tech" or believing in fantasies like "colonising Mars" or "geoengineering the entire planet"

Pagoda Japan. Source: WaSZI CCO Creative Commons

How to handle a crisis of overexploitation

Throughout history, agricultural societies have had to struggle with the balance between population growth and maintaining sufficient resources to support themselves. Some failed to manage their resource base sustainably which lead to collapse or disbanding while others took measures to ensure more sustainable use of their lands and persisted.

In modern times we all assume that democracy is a better option than authoritarian forms of government. Of course no one likes the idea of abuse of power and state violence that usually comes along with such forms of government. But are democracies inherently superior to authoritarian regimes in dealing with crises such as resource depletion?

To adapt to/or manage scarcity governments may have to do some unpopular things like restricting consumption, manage usage rights of natural resources and punish offenders. Can leaders find support for such policies through elections? Its very much an open question. Small communities have been known to manage pasture lands in a democratic manner more sustainably. But today's societies are huge in comparison.

Let's look at a historical case in which the Japanese, that had relatively large cities in terms of number even back during feudal times, managed to establish more sustainable forest management through both top-down and bottom-up practices.

Forest Management in Feudal Japan

Ecological crisis

Japan had a serious deforestation problem 300 years ago as a consequence of a growing population and unsustainable forest use. Forests were overexploited by logging mainly for timber and fuelwood. By 1570 Japan's population had reached 10 million people and needs for forest products had increased correspondingly. With the advent of the Tokugawa shogunate and peace, followed by rapid growth of cities and construction of castles, temples and shrines, logging increased during the 1600s to a scale never before experienced in Japan. Conflict between villagers and rulers over the use of forest lands became intense. By 1670 the population had increased to nearly 30 million and all the old growth forest had been completely logged, except for in Hokkaido. The supply of timber and other forest products was running out. Soil erosion, floods, landslides and barren lands were becoming common. Japan was headed for ecological disaster.

Feudal lords take action

There were three principal types of forest land tenure during the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). Feudal lords tenure, communal tenure and individual tenure. Individual tenure failed to develop because individual land ownership was prohibited in principle by the Tokugawa Shogunate. Therefore, almost all Japanese forest land tenure was either the feudal lords tenure or communal.

Access to the forest owned by feudal lords was strictly limited and those who logged illegally were severely punished. A typical example of forest owned and managed by a feudal lord was the Kiso area that was owned and managed by a relative of the Shogun.

The two major cities Edo and Osaka and forest management places like Kiso. Source: Iwamoto (2002)

Before the Tokugawa period, Kiso was covered with thick forest but by the late 17th century iso forest resource had deteriorated greatly. The feudal lord therefore carried out the first reform in 1665, instituting seedling protection, strengthening of patrols and selective cutting. The reform reduced timber production by half and cut the feudal lords income severely. Only a few years later the lord ordered an increase in timber production for financial reasons. Even though the reform first failed the second reform was planned in 1724. In this reform, timber production was reduced by more than 60% and this time it succeeded, carrying on for 30 years and thus allowing the forest to recover.

Common lands

During the Tokugawa period most Japanese people made their living by agriculture, managing uncultivated mountainous common lands surrounding their villages. Common forest lands provided a wide variety of ecosystem services such as timber, fuelwood, fertilizer, feed, clean water, erosion control etc. In the late 17th century, intensive forestry with artificial planting was begun by members (farmers) of the commons in response to increasing demand for wood. People planted valuable conifers such as sugi and hinoki and developing new techniques for planting, thinning and pruning plantations necessary for high-quality timber. Wandering scholars wrote silviculture manuals and traveled around the country spreading the new technology from village to village. Forest management stimulated new social institutions for the ruling elite and villagers to cooperate on timber production in a way that provided villagers incentives to produce timber: yamawari (dividing use rights of common lands among families), nenkiyama (long term leases of forest lands to villagers by the rulers), and buwakibayashi (villagers producing timber on rulers land and sharing the harvest with the elites). Slowly but surely reforesting took place.

Lessons from history

First of, action on the part of the ruling elite and villagers did not happen until forest resources were severely degraded and conflict arose between the two. New management practices were forced upon the population and breaking the rules meant severe punishment. Reforms sometimes failed due to financial interests and needs. Relying heavily on one sector for the majority of income was a bad strategy. A more diversified income probably helped later reforms to succeed. New forest management practices lead to the development of new social institutions that were more cooperative and respectful of usage rights. During hard times forests may have been overexploited but reforestation efforts during easier times helped prevent the worst of outcomes. The feudal lords were probably not very lenient towards villagers and ordinary people must have, at first, disliked the decision to cut back on timber production and being punished for logging in certain areas. However, they adapted to this new reality and started planting trees to meet the demand. Its a case of non-democratic rule that actually had a positive outcome in terms of more sustainable use of Japan's forests. Now, it should be mentioned that forests were again overexploitation during the second world war. And perhaps the previous reforms only succeeded due to times of peace. It also should be mentioned that after the war forests, both from common and lords lands, where taken up into public lands managed by the state. But it's still an interesting example to ponder. Perhaps a mix of both top-down and bottom-up rules is needed but to achieve successful management but its hard to imagine it happening without some amount of unpopular decision-making if the society is large.

After a busy year I have finally found some time to write again. I also feel the need to portray the very unusually dry and hot summer that we have had here in Sweden.

I'm sure most readers have already heard about how Sweden have struggled with lots of wildfires this summer. This is due to a heat dome forming over Scandinavia because of a broken and “stuck” jet stream (as explained in the video above) leading to high pressure weather over most parts of the country for two months (May-July) straight with very little or no rainfall. Only 13 mm (0.51 in) of rain from the beginning of May to late July. And temperature soaring to >30C, which in some regions is 20C above the norm. This have also been the case where I live, in the south east, where many are suffering from the prolonged heat and drought.

Many elderly are weakened and suffer heat strokes since buildings are not equipped with cooling air conditioning. Hospitals have had to cancel operations due to the heat and systems overheating. The death toll this summer will be above the norm.

Farmers have had a bad harvest due to lack of precipitation and don't have enough hay to feed their livestock. Many have had to slaughter their cattle. The government has promised 1.2 billion kronor (117 million euros, $137 million) in aid to help farmers hit hard by the drought. But many farmers think it's too little too late to keep them from going bankrupt and it doesn't help against the lack of rain.

Lots of wildfires have been raging in the middle part of the country, forcing people to flee and emergency measure to be put in place. Approximately 20,000 hectares" of forests have burned up. Some counties have banned outdoor fires and put restriction on water use. The government has had to ask other EU countries for help to fight the many wildfires both from above and on the ground. Volunteers have also played a major part in the effort to evacuate and put out fires.

Groundwater levels in smaller lakes in the south east are below average and falling. It will take a lot of rain or snow to recover to normal levels.

Air conditioners, pools and fluid replacements are out of stock in every supermarket. Electricity use is way above normal and nuclear plants might have to be closed down due to the water that's used to cool reactors now being to warm.

Trains have malfunctioned and there has been lots of train cancellations all through the summer.

Many animals suffer as well and people have put out water bowls in their gardens to provide relief.

The only good thing about this summer is that climate change now will be a part of the election campaigns for this fall. The question is, however, if people are willing to pay for the changes that are needed. Redesigning our infrastructure will not be cheap but its a must for the future.

Mother Nature Strikes Back

Yes it's true that an El Niño period usually brings about certain weather extremes, however, the 2015/2016 El Niño has broken all records in terms of strength i.e. heat being released into the atmosphere from the oceans. This is to be expected as the climate is getting warmer from all the carbon pollution that has altered the chemistry of the planet. Climate change acts as a multiplier effect, increasing the frequency or amplitude of extreme weather events.

I'm sure most people have read the terrible news about the massive wildfires in Alberta or the flash floods in Germany, France and West Virginia. Few, however, may have heard about the deadly heat waves in India, floods in Pakistan or failing harvests in South Africa.

Sometimes it's hard to get a grip on what climate change will do to our environments and livelihoods. It can feel distant in time or abstract. But changes are already occurring and we have to start adapting now or more people will have to flee and become climate refugees.

These two videos give a good overview of some of the extreme weather events that have struck nations around the world lately and why it's happening. It should give us all pause, make us understand the urgency of tackling and responding to a rapidly changing climate.

The beginning of the end for endless growth

In a new book called The Great Transition (2014) Mauro Bonaiuti tackles several themes of interest to those who study the interplay of resource depletion, pollution, and economic growth. Among others the effects of overpopulation, decline in EROEI, environmental degradation and more. The book also contains a discussion on how society could organize itself in a post-growth world.

As the global economy is once again on the verge of collapse, some see room for positive changes. While global crises are accelerating - climate change, energy instability, biodiversity loss and economic instability - a number of interconnected systemic revolutions are converging in a way that could facilitate positive transformation of the global economy according to Bonaiuti. From a economy that maximizes material consumption for the few, to a economy that caters for the needs and well being of all.

Bonaiuti argues that our current economic crisis is a symptom of a transition phase of civilization. Advanced capitalist societies have entered a phase of declining returns since the period after the Second World War. There has been a fluctuating but consistent long decline in GDP growth rate. Declining returns are to Bonaiuti a consequence of the interaction between limits of biophysical nature (peak resources, global warming etc.) and the increasing complexity of social structures (bureaucratisation, education and social security etc.).

As a result civilization is undergoing a huge phase shift as the current form of predatory capitalism crumbles beneath the weight of its own mounting unsustainability (debt burden). But this crisis also opens up for new opportunities and a range of scenarios for new forms of society. There is thus space for a great transition towards new institutional forms that could include greater democratic self-government of communities and their territories. And we can see how people are asking for this in Europe.

However, this process is also very disruptive. We cannot know how things will turn out and that is scary when we face major change. Some will strive to “return to the old society” as we see in nationalist tendencies in Europe, while others will want to “break free” from global capitalism and return to self-governance as we see in Spain and Scottland. Others will try to keep the old system intact for as long as possible. All we know is that when the framework changes, complexity science teaches us, that there will be other forms of economic and social organization more suited to the new situation. Crisis may enhance cooperation among decentralized, smaller scale economic organisation and offer greater chances of success as conditions change.

If Bonauiti is correct, then even as conventional economic tools turns out to be increasingly ineffective, we could expect to see more signs of a changing framework and with it the emergence of potential new forms of economic and social organization that function better than the old industrial paradigm. However, this is not to say it will be easy or that there won’t be winners and losers. It is the most adaptive to change that will win in the end, or so evolution teaches us.

Welcome to 2015, a year of transformation.

Climate hazards too much for the current governance paradigm to handle

Earth System Sensitivity

The Earth System

Earth System Sensitivity

Biogeophysical Feedbacks

Human feedbacks on the system

Climate Change Adaptation