Orange Skies

Orange Skies

There’s something unsettling about the virus, this seemingly inescapable, omnipresent, insidious force that keeps us locked in our homes. Some people almost wished for a tangible enemy, something obvious and terrifying but at the very least visible, so that they could justify the sacrifices and fear. The universe granted that wish in a very 2020 way—wildfires swept the west coast with the same force that the Australian wildfires did way, way back in January of this year. Suddenly, the sky was like something out of Dante’s Inferno, and you could taste the smoke particles floating in the air even through a face mask. The landscape matched the gathering feeling of apocalypse, and new numbers, like 4 million burned acres, joined the statistics we sing ourselves to sleep with: 45.1 million global COVID-19 infections, 230,000 COVID-19 deaths in the United States eight months and counting of using the phrase ‘unprecedented times.’ An article written by Stanford University student Nestor Walters on the wildfires poses the question: “How many more times do we need to hear words like trying, tumultuous or challenging as adjectives to times before we accept that these are simply the times we live in?”

No one can escape it—not the wildfires, not the pandemic, and not climate change. Rozzi, an American pop singer, released a ballad called “Orange Skies” about the wildfires in her hometown of San Francisco. She said of the song, “Despite the massiveness of the issue, I knew I wanted to make the song personal – because of course the underlying issue itself is personal. Climate change isn’t some mythical thing happening to other people, in other places – it’s happening right now, right outside our doors.”

Image from CNBC

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk reports 7,348 wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and heatwaves over the past 20 years. These natural disasters resulted in the deaths of 1.23 million people, affecting a total of 4.2 billion people, and caused $2.97 trillion in global economic losses. Most effected are China and the United States. The report unequivocally links these events to the rising global temperature as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, and finds that any improvements to disaster response or climate adaptation will be “obsolete in many countries” if climate change, the source of the problem, is not immediately addressed.

So how does climate change cause forest fires? National Geographic explains that as temperatures rise due to climate change, the hot air “soaks up water from whatever it touches—plants (living or dead) and soil, lakes and rivers. The hotter and drier the air, the more it sucks up, and the amount of water it can hold increases exponentially as the temperature rises; small increases in the air’s heat can mean big increases in the intensity with which it pulls out water.” In California, the rise in temperature is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit, far above the global average of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat combines with parched forest material, which is even dryer due to a persistent drought more intense than any for the past 1,200 years, producing the ideal conditions for a fire to consume forests, in addition to all of the settlements that have increasingly encroached among traditionally undeveloped lands.

Some preventive measures exist, though actual implementation by governments and industry varies. In Australia, nomadic aboriginal groups used to practice surface vegetation burning to prevent outbreaks of fire. Though indigenous populations can no longer engage in that tradition, the method is still emulated by local governments. Urban planning in Australia—where the 2019/2020 season was the hottest on record and driest for 120 years—must prevent expansion into flammable wildland areas, include vegetation-free zones around properties, use fireproof building materials, and plan evacuation and rescue routes in advance. In California, controlled burning of dry brush and excess debris is a common practice, though it contributes to air pollution. Currently, timber companies and biomass industries do not substantially support the state’s fire prevention strategy, so reducing costs of thinning projects would create better incentives for participation on an industry level. Additionally, as in Australia, building codes should emphasize fire-resistance and developing into high-risk areas should be banned. As a whole, these measures could reduce short term damage, but would address only the symptoms of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, and the warming of the Earth slows, these practices will not suffice.

Image from Vox

Economically, the stakes are high for leaders to respond effectively. California Governor Gavin Newsom announced investments in the CAL FIRE air fleet, early wildfire warning technologies, fire detection cameras, and permanent firefighting positions, along with related crisis counseling, legal services, and housing and unemployment assistance for people affected by the fires. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, on the other hand, was widely criticized for his slow response to the wildfires, though he did expressly link them to climate change—a link that the Australian Finance Minister denied. Though Australia has pledged to reduce its emissions by between 26 and 28% within the next decade, a UN report noted that few of the Conservative government’s policies are designed to reach this target. Studies on the economic impact of wildfires on affected areas show that “large wildfires lead to instability in local labor markets by amplifying seasonal variation in employment over the subsequent year” and that rural areas in particular struggle to recover. Even without the pandemic-induced recession, effects last months and even years in places like rural Oregon. Short term economic gains as local laborers rebuild are overshadowed by the slow economic growth that follows as tourism, logging, and other essential industries drop.

It’s been an overwhelming year, but the pandemic, the wildfires, and climate change are nothing new. We are experiencing the colliding effects of problems we as a global society created and then ignored, until a virus halted civilization and the skies turned orange. The problem isn’t invisible, it’s in everything: it’s the fuel that runs the world we are literally watching burn. But we still have time, just a tiny bit of time, to turn things around, and to lower our emissions by switching to renewable energy, and to rebuild a post-pandemic society sustainably. Nestor Walters puts it best: “We don’t own the past or future; all we have is now. We can’t let hope take away our now, or we’ll find ourselves looking out the window one morning, wondering if the sky used to be blue.”

Featured Image from Bloomberg

A Clear Solution

A Clear Solution

In my last blog, I discussed the importance of keeping environmental sustainability goals in mind when rebuilding the economy as we weather and eventually emerge from this global health crisis. I think it’s crucial to note that not only is it important to rebuild sustainably, but it is also entirely feasible, and actually the strongest option economically. I think the public has this general conception of there being a need to wait for some kind of miracle solution that scientists need to labor over for many more years to come, before the transition to renewables can occur. This is far from the case. Research on solutions to climate change is well supported, the technology needed to transition already exists, and the only thing still lacking is the public’s understanding of the facts of climate change, so that policies will finally support what scientists have long known. The time for the public to come to this realization is now, as we look beyond this year of chaos and horror into a still-undetermined future.

In 2011, Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson co-founded The Solutions Project, an advocacy group with the goal of promoting a policy shift to support 100% renewable energy by 2050. The project’s comprehensive research details how switching to renewables actually leads to a huge cost decrease for top-emitting countries like the United States. As the world’s top emitter of carbon per capita, the health and energy security of the country are at stake if the U.S. doesn’t speed up its transition. If the current energy norms continue, the estimated aggregate private and social costs are $2.1 and $5.9 trillion per year, respectively, whereas those of wind-water-solar energy are both $0.77 trillion per year.

Social cost refers to the full cost to society of adding one additional ton of CO2 to the atmosphere, and is used to understand both current and future climate damages, and to set policies like a carbon tax. 63,000 deaths caused by air pollution-related illnesses in the U.S. could be prevented by 2050 if we switch to 100% renewable energy. The switch would also create two million net long-term, full-time U.S. jobs. As a whole, a complete U.S. transition would reduce yearly aggregate energy costs, health-care costs and mortality, climate damage, and would create jobs—all vital aims after a year that has seen the U.S. plunge into recession, the unemployment rate soar, and the healthcare system become more burdened than ever as a result of the pandemic.

Graphic by A.K. von Krauland and M.Z. Jacobson

The early implementation of renewables will translate to enormous savings in money not lost to rescues after major hurricanes (which are caused increasingly by climate change), infrastructural damage, and abandoned property. The transition would also make the U.S. less dependent on foreign sources of energy, which could be hugely beneficial politically. Fear of attacks on the energy grid would be greatly diminished by the flexibility that renewables provide, making energy infrastructure a matter of national security. In short, if the use of fossil fuels is not rapidly diminished, rising demand for increasingly scare fossil energy will lead to economic, social, and political instability, enhancing international conflict.

Power providers can often build wind and solar farms more quickly than larger‐capacity conventional generating plants. This can enable them to meet incremental demand growth with less economic risk. The employment of renewable energy systems diversifies the fuel mix of utility companies, thereby reducing the danger of fuel shortages, fuel cost hikes, and power interruptions, while meeting demand for reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This translates to a higher energy resilience due to the nature of distributed renewable energy, which is far more difficult to disrupt than a centralized power plant. 

Image by CNBC

Beyond the indisputable facts and figures, I believe so strongly in switching to renewable energy sources because I’ve witnessed the effects of climate change firsthand, where I grew up in Miami, and where the water levels are rising rapidly. I remember tense drives home from school after hours of thunderstorms, when half a dozen cars stalled on the street because the flooding from the rain reached their tailpipes. We had to navigate our car through water that was in some places several feet high. Driving to South Beach on weekends, we complained of the endless construction—as soon as one project to raise the barriers between the canals and the street concluded, the next began to raise them even higher. Still, despite the increase in devastating hurricanes that tear through my hometown almost yearly, another result of climate change, we watch as skyscrapers continue to be built along the few remaining undeveloped stretches of beach. It would be a laughable exercise in denial if it weren’t so sad to think that I have no idea if the city will be recognizable just a few decades from now. Here too, the cost is not just personal, but also financial. A new study shows that if action isn’t taken, the damage to South Florida will surpass $38 billion by 2070. Prioritizing raising and floodproofing streets and buildings, and armoring the coast, over the continued short-sighted investment in real estate could in the not-so-long term save billions of dollars and create countless jobs.

Image from Curbed Miami

As a whole in my hometown, the rest of the U.S., and the world, transitioning to renewable energy has proven social and economic benefits. We already know what to do, and how to do it, and why it’s important. The miracle solution we’ve been waiting for is this— the realization that we can still fix this, now.

Featured Image from Physics World

Written by Francesca von Krauland, Columbia University Masters Student in Global Thought and Climate Justice Now Intern.