Key points summary:
Temporal and geographical dispersion of the effects of climate change has led to a lack of measurable or hence quantifiable short-term outcomes.
The dispersion of responsibility and outcomes across different sectors has caused dilution of concern
Similar dispersion of benefits from tackling climate change has lead to undervalued outcomes by traditional approaches and economic analysis
So I wanted to begin by describing a contrasting example from a quite unrelated field in a roundabout way of illustrating ways in which climate change has historically been an insidious and somewhat nebulous entity. The pathophysiology of a myocardial infarction, or heart attack, in its broadest sense, is as easily appreciated and quantified in investigations, as it is direct and immediate in consequences. At its rawest and simplest, the flow of oxygen rich blood is obstructed by clot and downstream tissues experience ischaemia, infarction, and cell death (a type 1 MI at least). In this, a negative health outcome is observed to arise directly and immediately from a mechanically conceptualised biological process. The reductionist, hard science, first principles, biochemistry side of our brains is of course very satisfied with this cause and effect equation. Such processes lend themselves to investigation, with readily observable and quantifiable short-term outcomes, such that research was already airborne by the time of the 1867 studies of Bezold and Breymann (1). It wouldn’t be for almost a century until the ‘causes of the causes’ (2) for ischaemic heart disease were beginning to be investigated, with the first results from landmark trials such as the Framingham heart study not coming into publication until 1957 (3). The critical importance of such trials was that they explored relationships and associations that would never be amenable to direct observation (4), achieved through what really was the pioneering use of epidemiological methodology - the pertinent point being consideration of big picture experimental findings; empiricism above the reductionist and mechanistic. And as noted by Dawber et al. in 1951 (4), the findings of Framingham were of considerable practical importance, being highly usable and able to inform both health policy and practice. We can see that the findings of this study remain not only relevant today, but genuinely underpin the evidence-based and nationally deployed approaches to cardiovascular risk management (5).
In stark contrast to this exists climate change - diffuse, scarcely quantifiable, and indirect-acting, it is composed of all the requisite elements for it to be overlooked, mismanaged, ignored, and similarly, that should any watered-down responsibility for counteraction arise it would be so broadly dispersed as to become trivial at any actionable level. Ultimately, there are any number of reasons why climate change, and similar broad-reaching issues may remain under appreciated and under-acted-upon, with speculation that key factors include the diffuse nature of both negative climate outcomes and benefits from climate action, as expounded below. This is to say that phenomenon such as global warming by their very nature remain insidious and difficult to address because their effects, the responsibility for their effects, the responsibility to take action, and the benefits that might arise from taking action, are all innately global and diffuse; temporally, geographically, and intersector-ally if you will. Additionally, the investigation and public communication of findings related to changes in a changing system, represents an appreciable challenge to any attempts at lay appreciation of the subject.
So global warming represents a long-term challenge, and as a phenomenon, one that fundamentally cannot be appreciated nor quantified by the day-to-day individualistic observation of weather (20). The effects of global warming are temporally dispersed over decades, and affect a system which is inherently cyclic and changing. Placing aside extreme meteorological events and experiences of those living near the arctic, the effects of global warming do not lend themselves to noticing by any casual observer, certainly to no point of prompting independently-motivated measurement or investigation. The same is true for a geographical component, and remains present today. The majority of urbanised landscapes where humans reside are relatively shielded from the effects of climate change. There are no seasonal migrations, no glaciers, and no river deltas by which to gauge long-term change. These locations tend to be fairly stable with respect to extreme weather events, whether by their initial selection as ideal for settlements or later by human engineering (à la Dubai), and because of this, few areas of the globe, especially those with large urban-living human populations, are (yet) to be so disproportionately affected by climate change as to be directly and undeniably observable on an individual level. Although this preceding statement around where most humans live is both factually incorrect and insensitive from a highly-westernised and urbanised perspective, this reason underscores the very decision for its inclusion. The adverse, individual, community, and society level effects of global warming already surround us, but regrettably, are seen outside view of the western media world, in smaller nations (6), readily in places like Bangladesh (7), Kiribati (8), Iceland (9). The issues facing each location affected by climate change (and locations yet to be), are often unique and intersectoral, or perhaps more appropriately, trans-sectoral. Industries such as fishing and overall ocean-based food security is threatened (10), along with tourism based around fragile ecosystems (11), ski resorts (12), and worldwide agriculture (13) with food security already far more jeopardised than is perhaps appreciated.
We see climate change is concealed over geographical space, over time, across many different sectors, and in systems already remarkable for randomness and changeability. We can expect the impact to be similarly dispersed over many sectors, and with anticipated flow-on effects that will leave few, if any, industries unscathed. The same factors obfuscating the presence of climate change are the same factors that underscore, in part, the lack of effective action we have witnessed to date.
Traditional approaches toward quantification of anticipated benefits, costs, and outcomes, and the manner in which these are weighted, are fundamentally not suited towards approaching long-term global issues such as climate change. Taking examples such as a simple traditional economic analysis, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or otherwise; these forms of analysis are not suited to handling long-term, intersectoral, difficult to quantify, and otherwise diffuse forms of costs or benefits (14). The argument presented is not that a suitably broad, encompassing and inclusive, time-horizon, well designed, and intersectorally respectful analysis would yield no value in dealing with issues arising from global warming; it is that the majority of such analyses undertaken before now have not. The kinds of analyses used by businesses, organisations, and government bodies on a day-to-day basis, used to inform and craft the policies and legislation leading to the position in which we now find ourselves. They simply weren’t designed with carbon emissions in mind.
As imagined, just as the effects of global warming are diffused, as too are potential benefits arising from climate change action. Although well described in important metrics and with benefits on an individual scale (15), climate change action will likely yield benefit for entire populations – but not economic benefit for any specific sector, organisation, or entity. Therein lies some of the challenge in tackling the creation of effective policies for climate change; it is in everyone’s interest but no specific entity, for profit at least, with the scale and means to invest heavily in the issue, stands to individually profit from such an enterprise. Freeloading off another entity’s commitment to reduced carbon emissions, with respect to the passive benefits incurred from climate change action, might be seen however to be the best of both worlds; of benefits without sacrifice. And this potential point is why definite, enforced government legislation represents the backbone of a strong climate policy. We need to witness diligent leadership at the top that is respectful to the unambiguous evidence base on global warming, carried forth with the spine and steadfast resolution to affect truly meaningful legislative reform.
In concluding, just one of the great points of sadness from this ongoing catastrophe is that those individuals, communities, and populations most susceptible to the seemingly unstoppable march of global warming are also the smallest contributors to global emissions (16), and the least well placed to affect the level of global change necessary to halt its progression (17,18,19).
T Michniewicz, August 2019
NB: Use of the terms climate change compared to global warming is not well respected by this article, which includes their employment in an indiscriminate and interchangeable manner.
Reference
1. Miller, J and Matthews, S (1909) ‘Effect on the heart of experimental obstruction of the left coronary artery’. Archives of Internal Medicine. III(5), 476. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1909.00050160109009.
2. Marmot, M (2017) ‘Inclusion health: addressing the causes of the causes’. The Lancet. 391(10117): 186-188.
3. Mahmood, S, Levy, D, Vasan, R and Wang, T (2014) ‘The Framingham heart study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular diseases: a historical perspective’. The Lancet. 383(9921): 999-1008. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61752-3.
4. Dawber, T, Meadors, G and Moore, F (1951) ‘Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: the Framingham study’. American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health. 41(3): 279-286. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32848-9.
5. National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance (2012) ‘Guidelines for the management of absolute cardiovascular disease risk’. National Stroke Foundation. Publication Approval: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government.
6. World Health Organization (2018) ‘Climate change increasingly affects small countries’ [online]. Available from: <http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/iceland/news/news/2018/6/climate-change-increasingly-affects-small-countries> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
7. Glennon, R (2017) ‘The unfolding tragedy of climate change in Bangladesh’. Scientific American. 21 April 2017. Available from: <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
8. Bowers, M (2017) ‘Waiting for the tide to turn: Kiribati’s fight for survival’. The Guardian. 23 October 2017. Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/waiting-for-the-tide-to-turn-kiribatis-fight-for-survival> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
9. Win, T (2017) ‘As glaciers melt, land of fire and ice watches its history seep away’. Reuters. 10 August 2017. Available from: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iceland-climatechange-glaciers/as-glaciers-melt-land-of-fire-and-ice-watches-its-history-seep-away-idUSKBN1AQ10M> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
10. Plaganyi, E (2019) ‘Climate change impacts on fisheries’. Science. 363(6430):930-931. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw5824.
11. Visser, N (2018) ‘As climate change ravages the great barrier reef, tourists flock to say goodbye’. Huffington Post. 31 August 2018. Available from: <https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/great-barrier-reef-tourism_n_5b7aeb09e4b018b93e9653ff> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
12. Fox, P (2014) ‘The end of snow?’. The New York Times. 7 February 2014. Available from: <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
13. Goldenberg, S (2014) ‘Climate change ‘already affecting food supply’ – UN’. The Guardian. 31 March 2014. Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
14. Weatherly, H, Drummond, M, Claxton, K, Cookson, R, Ferguson, B, Godfrey, C, Rice, N, Sculpher, M and Sowden, A (2009) ‘Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations’. Health Policy. 93(1): 85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.07.012.
15. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group ‘Benefits of climate action’. C40. London, United Kingdom. Available from: <https://www.c40.org/researches/measuring-benefits> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
16. Clark, D (2011) ‘Which nations are most responsible for climate change?’. The Guardian. 21 April 2011. Available from: <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
17. Swanson, A (2015) ‘The countries most vulnerable to climate change, in 3 maps’. The Washington Post. Available from: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/03/the-countries-most-vulnerable-to-climate-change-in-3-maps/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e272cd0dd158> [ Accessed: 20/04/2019].
18. Bathiany, S, Dakos, V, Scheffer, M and Lenton, T (2018) ‘Climate models predict increasing temperature variability in poor countries’. Science Advances. 4(5): eaar5809. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar5809.
19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1995) ‘IPCC second assessment climate change 1995’. A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available from: <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/06/2nd-assessment-en.pdf> [Accessed: 20/04/2019].
20. Pierre-Louis, K (2019) ‘Why is the cold weather so extreme if the earth is warming?’. The New York Times [online]. Available from: <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/winter-cold-weather.html> [Accessed: 07/08/2019].