Who's Thinking Ahead About Climate?

So, if the subject [of climate] has been effectively censored and suppressed, is there anyone out there thinking ahead about climate? Are there serious folks out there pursuing strategies based on climate models and predictions in spite of the silence? Are there organizations beyond the scientists and their research models strategizing about how changing climate conditions will impact their purpose?

Would you rather listen to this episode? Visit World Ocean Radio.

The political debate about climate in the United States has resulted in a stalemate as measured by legislative initiatives and public discourse. Save for the resolute voices of a determined few, such as Bill McKibben at www.350.org, an odd, depressing silence has enveloped the issue, a quiet that suggests that the power of denial, uncertainty, and the fear of change implicit in climate challenge has shut the conversation down. The evidence has not changed; indeed, it has been further affirmed in the dramatic new study of melting Arctic ice; increasing drought, flood, and extreme weather; and warming sea temperature negatively affecting fish migration patterns, the life cycle of certain marine species, algae blooms, and shellfish sustainability. 

So, if the subject has been effectively censored and suppressed, is there anyone out there thinking ahead about climate? Are there serious folks out there pursuing strategies based on climate models and predictions in spite of the silence? Are there organizations beyond the scientists and their research models strategizing about how changing climate conditions will impact their purpose? Well, here are two.

First, the US Navy. In May 2009, the Chief of Naval Operations created Task Force Climate Change (TFCC) that, according to the announcement, was intended “to address the naval implications of a changing Arctic and global environment, to make recommendations to Navy leadership regarding policy, investment, and action, and to lead public discussion on this serious issue.” “Climate change has implications for naval force structure and operations”, the announcement continued, and factors driving this include:

•    The changing Arctic;
•    The potential impact of sea level rise on installations and plans;
•    Changing storm patterns and severity;
•    Water and resource challenges;
•    Stress on vulnerable nation states; and
•    Increased humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

A number of scientific “wild cards” must also be considered, such as the impact of ocean acidification on ecosystems, abrupt climate change, and geo-engineering challenges” More recently, Courtenay St. John, a spokesperson for the Task Force, said this, “The Navy cares about climate change because it has implications for its operations and structure. There’s the threat of sea-level rise and increased storm surges to the Navy’s coastal installations; the potential stresses on water and food resources around the world, which may lead to more international humanitarian and disaster-response missions; and the stress on vulnerable nation states and potential national security issues that could arise.” And, even more recently, at a conference on the ocean and global security, I heard US Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus Jr., enumerate specific goals to be achieved by this initiative to include integration of climate science into forward planning and staff training, development of bio-fuels to drive the entire fleet in the next decade independent of foreign controlled oil supply, the construction of new hybrid or all electric ships, evaluation of sea level rise on the more that 740,000 Navy owned waterfront installations, buildings, and service structures worldwide, and even the re-location of strategic bases from places possibly no longer operationally viable and thus counter-productive to the Navy’s mission.

A second organization thinking ahead is the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, the world's largest humanitarian organization, whose work focuses on four core areas: promoting humanitarian values, disaster response, disaster preparedness, and health and community care worldwide. The Red Cross /Red Crescent has already been confronted with a sharp increase in weather-related disasters, and has recognized “an urgent need to better manage the rising risk of extreme weather events, including through better early warning, enhanced disaster relief, increased efforts on disaster risk reduction and better and smarter programs in health and care, water and sanitation, food security, and rising concerns on the potential impact on migration patterns.”

According to the International Federation, “the number of weather-related disasters each year has doubled since the early 1990s. A changing climate coupled with changes in land use and population patterns means more people will be living in locations vulnerable to storms, droughts, floods and other climate risks. The flood-related cholera epidemics in Senegal in 2005, for example, affected more than 30,000 people and killed nearly 500. Recently in Bangladesh, Cyclone Sidr forced millions from their homes and killed thousands. Events such as these--expected to become more frequent due to climate change--will place an increasing burden on governments and humanitarian organizations, which are responsible for mitigating impacts and saving lives.”

There you have it: beyond the ideologues, politicians, and deniers, there are organizations with future agendas that are taking climate science seriously, for different purposes perhaps, but nonetheless moving responsibly forward through the silence, thinking ahead about climate.

_____________________________________________________________________

Peter Neill, Director of the W2O and host of World Ocean Radio, provides coverage of a broad spectrum of ocean issues from science and education to advocacy and exemplary projects.