A Farewell to Ice Review: Watching Our Future Disappear in Front of our Eyes

It’s about time to write something that tries to reach out to the masses, and I can’t think of a better place to start than a review of Peter Wadhams’ book, A Farewell to Ice. I believe this is one of the key books on climate change and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in their own future or that of their children. Whilst this blog post (or essay) might seem emotive, I would encourage you to read the book and see for yourself just how close we are to an irreversible fate.

Peter Wadhams is a name that many students of polar geography will be familiar with. He is a polar scientist with over 47 years of experience in the field and has carried out over 50 expeditions in the Arctic and Antarctic. This book explores the impact of rising temperatures on the frozen areas of our planet, with a particular focus on the Arctic, because, “It is in the Arctic that global change appears to be most rapid and drastic” (Pg. 1). There’s never been a more poignant time to read this book as it’s recently been revealed that both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are at record lows.

The Arctic is a crucial part of our climate system, as it helps regulate temperature. The ice plays a crucial role in reflecting radiation and keeping temperatures lower than they would otherwise be through the Albedo effect (white sea ice reflects more than the black ocean beneath). To get an idea of just how big a role the Arctic sea ice plays in regulating temperature, Wadhams explains that once the Arctic melts, “The albedo change from the loss of the last 4 million km2 of ice will have the same warming effect on the Earth as the last twenty-five years of carbon dioxide emissions” (Pg. 4). Take a minute to think about that – it is an incredible figure to get our heads around. Even more concerning is that Wadhams warns that the Arctic may be free of sea ice by around September 2020. This could trigger rapid climate change, as I will discuss later on.

What is the Climate?

The climate is defined as the weather conditions in a region over a period of time (often 30 years). Therefore in order to see a change in climate, you will first see a change in weather patterns. If you happen to read a quality newspaper (i.e. The Guardian or The Independent), you will notice increasing weather extremes taking place around the world – physical evidence of our changing climate.

Carbon Emissions

Not a fan of the science stuff? Don’t worry, I will keep this simple. Scientists estimate the safe limit of carbon dioxide is 350ppm (parts per million). Prior to the industrial revolution, we had 280ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Right now we are at 406ppm and the rate of carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere each year is around 3ppm.

Around 65 million years ago there was an asteroid impact which wiped out much of life on earth. Wadhams notes that, “The CO2 rise rate was still an order of magnitude lower than the current rate of 3ppm/year. We are injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere far faster than any known natural event, even an extreme one like an asteroid impact” (Pg. 28). Never before have carbon emissions risen so fast. Bear in mind that there is a direct correlation between carbon emissions and global temperature increases. So if we are pumping carbon into the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever before, then we can expect global temperatures to rise faster than ever before.

Impacts on the Arctic

Ice extent is so low in the Arctic that, “By the end of 2015 a total of 238 ships had sailed through it. In September 2012 sea ice covered only 3.4 million square kilometres (km2) of the Arctic Ocean’s surface, down from 8 million km2 in the 1970s (Pg. 2).”

Whilst the melting of the Arctic sea ice won’t raise sea levels, it’s white surface plays a crucial role through the albedo affect. To put this in perspective, we have lost 4,600,000km2 of sea ice in just 42 years. Worryingly the much maligned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is underestimating Arctic ice warming, as they have failed to update their models with recent data. So we look to Peter Wadhams who has been travelling to the Arctic since the 1970s and has been observing it’s depressing decline. Based on his estimates, the Arctic will be ice free in the summer in around 3 years’ time in 2020 (which is incredibly different to the IPCC’s forecast of between 2050-2080). The problem is that policymakers are basing their decisions on the inaccurate IPCC forecasts and not on reality…

Have you wondered why severe winter weather has hit Europe, North America and parts of Asia in recent years? What we are seeing is a weakening of the jet stream, which would normally confine the cold polar air over the Arctic regions. However, as the jet stream weakens, the polar air is shifting further south. So whilst Europe gets covered in deep snow, the Arctic temperatures actually begin to rise and less ice forms. Wadhams explains further, “In recent years we have seen an increase in the size of the meanders in the jet stream, that is, the north-south range of the meanderings. This drives another energy feedback: the north-bound air masses on the tropical side of the jet stream boundary bring warmer air into the Arctic, while the south-bound air masses on the polar side take colder air out of the Arctic into lower latitudes than in the past. This increased meandering of the jet stream is, therefore, in itself a heat-transfer accelerator from mid-latitudes to higher latitudes” (Pg. 135).

Wadhams notes that “The Greenland ice sheet, with its high latitude and huge elevation of 2-3km, always used to be solidly frozen year-round, except for a small amount of melt around the edges….The biggest melt so far was in 2012, when in the period 1-11 July surface melt spread across 97 percent of the surface of the ice sheet” (Pg. 10). Whilst we hope that a disintegration of the entire Greenland ice sheet won’t happen anytime soon, we should remember that the melting of Greenland’s ice will add 7.2m to global sea levels (whereas the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could add 60m to global sea levels). Wadhams states, “They have found that the Greenland ice sheet is now losing 300km3 of water equivalent per year, a rate which is increasing and which is already as high as the loss from all other glaciers put together.”

So why does the Arctic matter so much? There is a hidden danger in the Arctic that has the potential to trigger rapid climate change in the coming decades.

Rapid Climate Change

“We are not far from the moment when the feedbacks will themselves be driving the change – that is, we will not need to add more CO2 to the atmosphere at all, but will get the warming anyway. This is a stage called runaway warming” (Pg. 108).

There is a real worry that we will pass tipping points in the near future, after which the climate system will enter a self-perpetuating continuous warming cycle, where the earth will continue to warm up and we won’t be able to stop it. A bit like what happened to Venus. The potential cause of this is explained below.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, which is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat (however, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for around 100 years, whereas methane only remains for around 10 years). Buried under frozen permafrost on land are methane deposits. Worringly there are also vast quantities of methane buried on the seabed below the Arctic sea ice. This type of methane is referred to as methane clathyrates. When these methane clathyrates melt, they release methane which then bubbles to the surface and is released into our atmosphere, thereby doing 23 times more damage than carbon dioxide, in terms of trapping heat.

Wadhams refers to a potential catastrophe triggered by largescale releases of methane as one of the most immediate risks facing us as a species, “The amount of methane stored in hydrate deposits in the entire ocean bed is estimated to be more than thirteen times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and amounts to 10,400 gigatons” (Pg. 122). Wadhams notes that at least 50Gt of methane could be emitted into the atmosphere through this process in the near future, resulting in additional 0.6°C rise in global temperatures. This may not sound like much, but look at the weather extremes taking place around the world. These have occurred with just 1.2°C warming. But a further 0.6°C rapid rise in temperatures, combined with an ice free Arctic and reduced Albedo effect could cause some major shifts in our climate system, leading to runaway climate change.

To get an idea of a worst case scenario, this informative blog post warns that mass extinction could take place within 9 years. Click here to read the blog.

What about Antarctica?

As mentioned in the introduction, the Antarctic sea ice is also at record low levels. Wadhams says, “The Arctic amplification and greater Arctic feedbacks mean that, whatever the interactions between Antarctic sea ice and temperate oceans, it will always be the case over the next few decades that the Arctic will be determining the rate of global warming more than the Antarctic. In this sense the Arctic is a driver and the Antarctic can be thought of as a passive trailer in the global warming race to oblivion” (Pg. 170).

Refugee Crisis

For every degree of warming in air temperature, “We add something like 7 percent of extra water vapour content to the atmosphere” (Pg. 109), states Wadhams. Not only is water vapour a greenhouse gas that will further increase the rate of warming but even more crucially, excess water vapour in the atmosphere means more potential for extreme and violent rainfall events. You only need to go onto social media sites to see people sharing pictures of unbelievably powerful storms in recent years. Whilst exciting to marvel at, these events will become more widespread and will have a multitude of unwelcome impacts; think crop destruction and increased food prices, increased flooding, mudslides, travel chaos (trains not running, more traffic on roads, planes delayed), more potholes and damaged car tyres, loss of topsoil which is essential for farming, more pollutants from land being washed into rivers and the sea. Conversely, it’s entirely possible that some regions will receive less rainfall and will therefore be dealing with more intense droughts. One major issue that we will have to deal with will be food production – if more regions become susceptible to extreme rainfall events/hail storms, whilst others become too hot and barren – where will we grow food to sustain our growing population of 7.5 billion people (expected to reach over 9 billion people in the next 33 years)?

As more regions become uninhabitable due to crippling droughts or violent precipitation events (e.g. intense hail storms) that will destroy crops, people will naturally seek to move to find areas where they can grow food to sustain themselves and their families. We have already seen something similar happen in Syria, where due to an intense drought, many farmers were unable to grow crops and instead moved to cities to find work. Due to a lack of jobs and government assistance, violence soon flared. This helped ignite the civil war which still has a stranglehold on the country. Click here to read more.

What concerns me is that we are unable to cope with this first wave of refugees and the fallout has seen voters in many countries favour anti-immigrant candidates. As extreme weather leads to more conflict and more uninhabitable regions, we are going to see immigration spike as hundreds of millions of people seek to move from the Middle East, Africa and low lying areas. I envisage this will take place over the next couple of decades. So if we are overwhelmed with several million refugees now, how will we cope with hundreds of millions of refugees in the future? Where will they go? Who will feed them?

Aid agencies will be overwhelmed (many organisations are already stretched with our present global issues – click here for more information), so we can’t rely on them for a solution. I think we will get to a point in the not too distant future where people are kept out of countries by military force, resulting in millions and millions of deaths. Intolerance and violence will come to define our species.

This is what we are heading towards. Is this a world you are happy for your children to inherit?

Current Commitments to Tackle Climate Change

Incredibly insufficient. That’s all you need to know. We should be finding ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to try and return from 406ppm to 350ppm as quickly as possible. Sadly we are still increasing our carbon dioxide emissions by 3ppm per year. We are balancing on a cliff precipice preparing ourselves to fall face first towards a rocky death.

To top it all off, we now have climate sceptics running America, who are putting in place policies to go hell for leather to extract and burn as many fossil fuels as possible. They are planning to tear up the one climate agreement that we have (Paris), which to be fair wasn’t strong enough anyway.

Scary Numbers

Supposing by some luck that Trump doesn’t withdraw from the Paris agreement, which commits countries to avoid a 1.5°C rise in temperatures. From an emissions point of view, it means we can only emit 353 gigatons of CO2 to meet this target. There is no guarantee that this will be sufficient to avoid a larger temperature rise, it only gives a 50% chance of avoiding smashing that target (in a bad way). So ideally we need to emit a lot LESS than 353 gigatons of CO2. The problem we have is that all the existing coal mines, oil wells and gas fields which are currently in operation are expected to produce 942 gigatons of CO2.

As you can see, this is three times more than we can burn to try and limit temperature rises to a supposed ‘safe’ limit. So not only can we not afford to open any new coal mines, gas fields or oil wells, but we have to leave much of the existing resources in the ground. Just so you know – our politicians haven’t taken steps to limit fossil fuel extraction – they are happy to let the world burn and destroy your children’s future. Worth remembering that little nugget…

Oh and Trump has done the worst thing imaginable. In Canada, they have the most polluting form of fossil fuel that produces shed loads of carbon emissions when extracted and burnt – called ‘Tar Sands’. Trump has given the go ahead on the Keystone XL pipeline which will transport this filth from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in the US. The world’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, has said that if the tar sands are extracted and burnt, then it’s “game over for the climate.”

Trump is hammering away at that nail and driving it deeper and deeper into our collective coffin.

Geoengineerng

This really scares me. In my opinion this should be a last resort (or preferably avoided entirely). That being said, I am all for planting more trees – but I class this more as a form of natural carbon removal, as opposed to geoengineering. Wadhams describes geoengineering options in the book and I will let you explore them for yourself.

Why don’t I know about all of this? It sounds pretty serious after all….

Is smoking cigarettes good or bad for you? Believe it or not, there once used to be a time when this was a genuine question. Tobacco companies were exceptionally rich and had an interest in maintaining their sales. The idea that smoking could have adverse health affects, didn’t sit well with their profit forecasts. So they got together and hired think tanks and lobbyists to ‘sow the seeds of doubt’ and question the science as to whether smoking was bad for your health. The lobbyists and think tanks were paid large sums by the tobacco industry to keep up their war on science and question/dispute medical findings, to make it seem to ordinary members of the public that the science wasn’t clear. When in fact the science was crystal clear all along. Those lobbyists and think tanks did a fantastic job and it took many many years for the science to be accepted, and for people to realise that smoking was harmful.

So what’s this got to do with climate change? Well the fossil fuel industry is one of the most powerful industries in the world and oil companies such as Exxon are some of the richest in the world. It has recently emerged that scientists working for those companies realised as early as the 1970s, that burning fossil fuels would result in climate change. Once again, they too realised that their profit forecasts could tumble if the public realised that burning fossil fuels could one day jeopardise the future prospects of their children and grandchildren. And it just so happened that they had a whole bunch of lobbyists and think tanks who were keen to muddy the waters and make the science seem unclear (and in the process get paid incredible sums by oil companies). Wanna guess where the oil industry found these think tanks and lobbyists?? Yup – they poached some from the tobacco industry. If you’re interested to read more about this, I recommend a book called Merchants of Doubt. If you believe that the ‘debate’ about the causes of climate change is unsettled, or that human’s influence is negligible, you can thank the lobbyists and think tanks who poisoned your mind.

Wadhams explains the role these villains have played, “Their aims and methods are exactly the same as those of tobacco industry lobbyists – to sow doubt about the harmfulness of the impacts to the point that ordinary people become confused and are willing to tolerate inaction. They don’t have to persuade people that climate change is not happening – just sow doubt, and since action to save the world involves effort, cost and discomfort, it is always tempting to latch on to a statement that we don’t really need to do anything at all…The denial movement, which is now estimated to be funded…to the tune of $1 billion per year” (Pg. 199).

And to top it all off, Trump appointed Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon as his Secretary of State. That’s right – the guy who led one of the richest companies in the world, which lied about the links between burning fossil fuels and climate change is now America’s Secretary of State. You couldn’t make this up.

Where is Our Resistance? 

In order for evil to prosper, all you need is for good people to sit back and do nothing. Looking at the state of the world, there appears to be a lot of good people sitting back and doing nothing. “Saddest of all is the personal paralysis that one sees in society. In the 1960s the young in the West were united in great crusades – against racism, against the Vietnam War – which showed that they really cared about the state of the world. Now, when the stakes are even higher and the need more urgent, they are passive” (Pg. 173). When our leaders fail to do the right thing, it is up to us to make them do the right thing. Think of the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement and the anti-apartheid movement.

I am astounded by the complete lack of political participation of many of my peers in my age group. Many have openly admitted that putting a cross on a ballot paper every 5 years is all they deem necessary, in terms of democratic participation. Well I’m sorry, but this just isn’t good enough – not in these desperate times! I put climate change above all other issues, but you only need to open up The Guardian website to see a plethora of urgent problems which require action. When our politicians choose to do the wrong thing, we must put them back on the right path. In an ideal world they should serve the people who elected them. In reality, many serve the big corporations who helped finance their electoral victories.

“The young are not listening or being inspired to action, and the old are not leading or teaching” (Pg. 174). We must make a stand. March, protest, sue governments or corporations if you have too. Do something. We need to get out of our selfish isolated technological bubbles.

The Worst Part

If we carry on as we are right now, the climate system will reach a series of tipping points, after which it will be impossible to stop runaway climate change. All we need to do to ensure disaster happens – is to do exactly what we are doing right now. Isn’t that a sobering thought?

As Wadhams sums up, “It is the most important problem the world faces…If we don’t solve it, we are finished” (Pg. 206).

What Can I Do?

A lot of documentaries and articles tend to shy away from advice that can actually make a difference, as it involves uncomfortable truths. We are well beyond ‘replacing lightbulbs’ now. To make a genuine difference, this is a list of things which I believe can make an impact:

  • Protest/march against ALL new fossil fuel developments (see the ‘Scary Numbers’ section above).
  • Reduce our consumption of meat, particularly beef.
  • Drive less, or purchase an electric car (assuming that our grid will move away from fossil fuel generation plants).
  • Fly less.
  • Stop reading tabloids, which present lies as truths and focus on sensationalism as opposed to reality. I can’t emphasise enough the role the media has played in the failure of climate change science communication. Major tabloids to be avoided include The Daily Mail and The Sun. It’s worth noting that The Telegraph has employed climate change sceptics to write columns and I would suggest avoiding this paper too. The BBC has done a really bad job with climate change and I steer away from this source wherever possible.
  • Educate yourself – read this book. I’m happy to recommend more books and documentaries.
  • Hold politicians to account.
  • Hold companies to account.
  • Avoid apathy – try turn your depression into anger, or something of equal usefulness. Apathy will not solve this problem.

Looking at the state of the world and taking into account how dire our predicament is in regards to climate change, I can’t help wonder about whether we deserve saving as a species. But that’s a debate for a seperate blog post.

Links

Arctic and Antarctic sea ice at record lows – http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2017/02/16/this-is-not-good-sea-ice-at-both-poles-at-record-lows-for-january/#6792cb463404

Methane release leading to mass extinction by 2026 – http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html

Syrian civil war ignited by climate change induced drought – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

Aid agencies currently overwhelmed – https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/oct/02/humanitarian-system-stretched-to-its-limits-says-new-research

Scary carbon emissions numbers – http://www.ourfutureisgreen.co.uk/?tag=carbon-bubble

Tar sands are game over for the climate – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/19/tar-sands-exploitation-climate-scientist

Merchants of Doubt book – http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

Exxon knew about the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change in the 1970s – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/exxons-climate-lie-change-global-warming

“Cli-Fi” as a Subgenre of SF Gains Traction Down Under

5th February 2017

I am delighted to share the guest post below, written by Dan Bloom.

“Cli-Fi” as a Subgenre of SF Gains Traction Down Under

by Dan Bloom

While it’s true that Australia, unlike the U.S. and Europe, has not had a long history in the genre of science fiction,  Australia in 2017 has a thriving SF/Fantasy genre with names recognised around the world. In 2013 a trilogy by Ben Peek fantasy novel and two sequels were acquired by a major SF publisher in Britain, Tor UK.  His first novel in the series, titled Immolation, was published in spring 2014. The trilogy was called “Children” and books two and three were titled Innocence and Incarnation. By the 1950s, just as the SF genre was taking off in dozens of countries in Europe and North America, it took off across Australia in 1952 with the first of many Australian SF conventions.

Today there’s James Bradley and Cat Sparks writing SF, with other writers, including Ian Irvine, Alice Robinson. Joanthan Strahan, Peter Carey and dozens of others following in George Turner’s footsteps.

There is now a new subgenre of SF that’s becoming popular in Australia, and it’s been dubbed Cli-Fi (for ”climate fiction”). It’s not so much as a literary subgenre to compete with other literary genres,  but rather a PR tool,  a media term,  a way for newspapers and websites to signal to readers and book reviewers that climate themes in modern novels deserve a special mention.  The cli-fi expression ws created as a way for literary critics and journalists to talk about novels of the Anthropocene.

Cli-fi was not created for novelists.  They don’t need categories or labels for their works.  Even SF novelists don’t need the SF label.  Genre expressions are just marketing terms, good for selling books. Cli-fi was created for literary critics,  book reviewers,  book editors,  publicity departments,  advertising directors.  It is a “key word,”  a media attention-getter,  to attract eyeballs (and readers).
SF novelists tell stories.  They’ve been doing this for over 100 years and will continue telling stories for another 500 years.

So Cli-Fi novelists in Australia and overseas have now joined the literary circus. Their stories focus  on the possible repercussions of unchecked runaway global warming. It’s a good subgenre of SF and will be for the next 500 years, too.

The short term modelled on the rhyming sounds of sci-fi, has now caught on worldwide, first in English-speaking nations, beginning in  2013 when American radio network NPR aired a five-minute radio segment about ”cli-fi”  novels, interviewing Nathaniel Rich who wrote “Odds Against Tomorrow” and Barbara Kingsolver who wrote “Flight Behavior” .

That radio broadcast was the beginning of this new subgenre term’s global outreach and popularity among academics, literary critics, journalists and headline writers in over a dozen nations, including non-English-speaking nations France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Brazil as well.

To learn more about how ​SF writers were looking at the popularity of the cli-fi term in literary circles, a few years ago I asked David Brin and Kim Stanley Robinson how they felt about the term. They both told me that they liked the expression but felt that it was best to treat it as a subgenre of ​SF and not as a separate genre.

By promoting the cli-fi term as a subgengre of ​SF, I was able to locate ​SF writers who were already using climate themes in their short stories and novels. From them I learned that cli-fi in SF novels actually had a long history, going back to Jules Verne, Arthur Herzog, J.G. Ballard and George Turner in Australia.

Kim Stanley Robinson’s new novel “New York 2140” (set to be published in March) is a good example of the cli-fi subgenre catching on among writers peering into the future of a global warming world.

What’s the purpose of cli-fi?

We are a world now divided bitterly over climate change issues.
Novels and movies can serve to wake people up in ways that politics and ideology cannot.

And I believe that if the world does not wake up soon about the pressing climate change issues we face now, future generations of humans will be ‘doomed, doomed’ — within 500 years. I can ​”​see​”​ that far ahead. Will ‘cli-fi’ save the planet? No. But at least it might help prepare us for what’s coming in future centuries, just as SF novels have done and will continue to do.

The idea for a subgenre for speculative climate fiction ​as a subgenre of SF ​found some traction ​in 2011 when it was endorsed ​in a tweet ​on Twitter by ​Margaret Atwood, the ​Canadian ​novelist whose ​SF trilogy, ​ending w​ith ​”MaddAddam” dealt with a corrupt anti-environmentalist.

​There ​are examples ​of cli-fi ​in France as far back as Jules Verne, who imagined​ ​—​ ​in the 1860s​ ​—​ ​a future Paris struggling with a ​big drop in temperature​s​. That was a plot point in Verne’s “lost” novel ”Paris in the Twentieth Century,” which actually went unpublished until 1994.

Given the speed with which the phrase “climate change” (which actually dates back at least 50 years) has overtaken the ​global ​environmental discussion in recent years, it’s perhaps not surprising that there’s been a surge in books in the SF subgenre of cli-fi. Among them are Marcel Theroux’s ”Far North,” which the Washington Post called “the first great cautionary fable of climate change” and Ian McEwan’s  ”Solar,”which won a UK literary award for comic fiction.

These are all examples of quality fiction that happen to take climate change as a shared theme.

​A good cli-fi ​story​ ​will have the potential to attract not only climate activists, but also some of the ​climate ​deniers: The whole point is to reach people with emotions, not just preach to the choir.

​The new novel from the Hugo Award-winning ​SF l​egend Robinson submerges Manhattan under the water of globally-rising ​sea ​l​evels​. ​Robinson’s PR team puts it this way:​“Every street became a canal​. ​Every skyscraper an island​. ​How will the city’s residents — the lower and upper classes, quite literally — cope?​”​

So just as SF has helped several generations in the past 100 years cope with technological change and space exploration (and climate change), so too can cli-fi help future generations cope with what’s coming down the road as well.