Structuring your paper Key point: Structure by CONCEPT, not by CASE Why? Because comparisons are easier across concepts Example: Research question: which countries are likely to be lease able to adapt to climate change? Want to compare France and Germany Scholars/literature show that economic wealth, national institutions, and physical infrastructure are important parts of adaptive capacity How do you structure the paper?

Two options Bad option Good option Intro Adaptive capacity factors literature review Economic wealth National institutions Physical infrastructure France Economic wealth National institutions Physical infrastructure Germany Economic wealth National institutions Physical infrastructure Conclusion Intro Adaptive capacity factors literature review Economic wealth National institutions Physical infrastructure Economic wealth France compared to Germany National institutions France compared to Germany Physical infrastructure France compared to Germany Conclusion

A word on citations “Quoted phrase” (Lastname Year, page #). Basic concept from an article (Lastname Year).

4

Gardiner’s view of options 5 Source: Gardiner, S. Perfect Moral Storm. Oxford UP, 2011, p. 224.

Four basic response options Mitigation Reduce our generation of GHGs “Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation” (IPCC, 2007) Adaptation Change how we live when climate changes do occur “Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt” (IPCC, 2007) Geo-engineering Develop technologies to reduce incoming solar energy or “store” carbon we emit Grief Accept losses, changes we can’t avoid or adapt to 6

Warsaw Climate Conference COP-19 Emission reductions “Pushers” (e.g., EU) want quantified commitments by 2014 but pushed to 2015 and only “contributions” “Parties ready to do this will submit clear and transparent plans” by early 2015 “Working” the ambition gap between reduction commitments and 2˚C: goal was 40% reduction from 1990 levels Loss and damage mechanism “Events to which no country can adapt” Conflict over whether it fits as adaptation or is distinct from it (and hence who is responsible for it financially) Developing nation assistance Commitment to provide $100 billion per year by 2020 Specific schedule desired but developed nations refuse

Warsaw Climate Conference COP-19 Adaptation/adjustment for developing countries Technological assistance Financial assistance REDD+ “Help developing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and the degradation of forests”

Preparing for Climate Change Vicki Arroyo, The Rockefeller Foundation grantee Climate change and resilience.

Comparing Mitigation/Adaptation/Geoengineering Intended consequences Humans Other animals, plants, etc. Unintended consequences Ocean acidification Ease of action Cost of action Distribution of costs Distribution of benefits Cost efficiency and cost effectiveness

Cap and Trade Goals: a) achieve environmental goal, b) avoid command and control, and c) providing financial incentives to reduce emissions at lowest cost (and encourage innovation) Process Identify facilities covered Set a cap Distribute tradable emission allowances Allow trading Monitor if submitted allowances equal actual emissions Impose penalties if emissions exceed allowances

Caveats on Cap and Trade Isn’t this just “granting the right to pollute”? How do you measure “additionality”? Tradeoffs between flexibility and effectiveness

Adaptation Exposure Vulnerability Adaptive capacity Adaptation Resilience

Why adaptation vs. mitigation? Timescale mismatch – changes will happen even IF we return to prior levels eventually. Impacts are coming and so will need to adapt. Vulnerability is increasing – adaptation to climate impacts are growing even without growing climate change because of demographic shifts, particularly to the coast and other vulnerable areas. Impacts are going to happen and vulnerable are demanding help.

Caveats on adaptation Climate change not main cause of vulnerabilities Flooding and cyclone risks are due mainly to demographic shifts Reduced water availability due to population not climate change Political implications “Poor and vulnerable” will find it hard/impossible to adapt “Rich and vulnerable” who can adapt easily have weak incentives to help others What adaptation can’t do: Many people won’t be able to adapt because of lack of resources. Loss and damage negotiations of Warsaw (2013): “Residual damage” (Parry et al) when society doesn’t make all the changes need to fully adapt, with some remaining damage Animals and plants cannot adapt.

Geo-engineering options (Boyd 2008) Carbon burial. Store CO2 under pressure below Earth’s surface Geochemical carbon capture. Dissolve CO2 during emission in seawater. Atmospheric carbon capture. Capture CO2 from air masses chemically via towers that “scrub” the wind. Ocean fertilization. Nitrogen fertilization of ocean waters to boost phytoplankton productivity which sinks and “sequesters” CO2 in deep oceans. Stratospheric aerosols. Inject sulphur particles into upper stratosphere, using balloons or projectiles, which are there to form aerosols to reflect sunlight. Cloud-whitening. Spray seawater droplets into air below marine clouds to increase their size. Sunshades in space. Launch many sunshades into orbit to redirect incoming sunlight in space National Academy of Sciences study of this currently underwaycurrently underway

Geo-engineering options Boyd, Philip W Ranking geo-engineering schemes. Nature. Vol 1 (November)

Geo-engineering the planet Schneider’s intentional vs. unintentional Unintentional: climate change! Intentional: effort to avoid problems of climate change But if we manipulate it intentionally, responsibility shifts Will connections of additional damage be clear enough to blame those who intentionally manipulated the climate? Victor et al. argues yes but Schneider argues no And, additional damage due to climate change (unintentional geo-engineering) ARE what loss and damage negotiations are about

Geo-engineering caveats May not fix climate change problem At all For long periods of time Doesn’t fix other CO2 problems, e.g., ocean acidification Side effects Inability to control perfectly Moral hazard: reduced efforts toward mitigation

Much is known; enough to act even if some uncertainty remains We know MUCH, certainly enough to act if we decide we want to. There remain some uncertainties 24

What should we do?