There are many types of problems in this world that - when the phenomenon itself actually begins - is not actually yet a “problem”. A white lie, for instance, is not typically interpreted as a “problem”. Often, telling a white lie is interpreted as a net benefit. Maybe you’re protecting someone’s feelings. Maybe you avoid some real embarrassment. And it would not become a problem if you left it at that, and moved on…
But sometimes the lie is retold, again and again, and it grows. The next thing you know it becomes self-reinforcing and now new lies have to be told to uphold the presumed authenticity of the original lies, and finally, either the whole thing comes crashing down as the truth comes out, or an entire alternative reality is constructed to uphold the original harmless fib.
Or, take another example: Substance abuse. Maybe in the initial phase, the use of a substance (say, alcohol) is relatively harmless. It may even accrue net benefits (as a social lubricant; something to help you relax). But scaling up consumption it quickly becomes a problem. It’s impacting your health, your sleeping habits, your behaviour, your relationships. And if it becomes an addiction… well we all know how destructive alcoholism can be, both to an alcoholic and to the people around them. And we know how difficult a problem it can be to overcome.
Initial Phase
Climate change is sort of like this type of problem. We can identify an ‘initial phase’, a ‘growth phase’, and a ‘crisis phase’. In the initial phase, it wasn’t really a ‘problem’. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through to about the early Post-War years, the combustion of fossil fuels was more an air pollution and (consequently) a public health problem. The changing climate - and it was indeed changing, albeit relatively slowly compared to now - with average global temperatures creeping up by about 0.2°C (compared to the pre-Industrial era), was not really that problematic in the grand scheme of things.
It’s thoroughly possible that this amount of warming, which did amount to observed weather changes for many on the ground (who were keeping close track), may have actually been of net benefit to humanity. As climate skeptics like to point out, a warming world did indeed mean less people dying of extreme cold (though it’s hard to separate how many of such deaths were avoided thanks to global development than actual temperature changes). And, an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere did play a role in the natural fertilization of plants, with some increases in crop yields (though here too it’s important to separate how much of the yield increases were due to agricultural innovation vs. higher rates of atmospheric CO2).
Growth Phase
But starting around the 1970s, we shifted from the Initial Phase of climate change into a Growth Phase. This is when it became a “problem”. This followed a sustained period of massive growth in the amount of fossil fuels extracted and burned globally (going back to around the second quarter of the 20th Century). That is, it was during the Initial Phase that the originating force which would become the problem during the Growth Phase actually took place…
During the Growth Phase, which I would argue lasted up until about the 2010s, we set in motion what would inevitably turn climate change into a full blown crisis. But it wasn’t yet a crisis, it was a problem. It was a problem in that the impacts became more noticeable, and concerning. We started to see the effects of ocean acidification (which causes coral reefs to experience bleaching). We started to see growing incidences of extreme weather - especially in regards to extreme heat events. We started to see things that simply seemed new and unexpected (“global weirding” was the emergent phrase). And the scientists started to give warnings. They noted that we were indeed seeing changes caused by anthropogenic climate change, and warned that if we didn’t get the situation under control, it would get worse.
We took some remedial action. We brought the international community together in the 1990s to create the UN Convention on Climate Change; and we created an international protocol (at Kyoto) to find a way start addressing the problem. A new field of science - Attribution Studies - allowed scientists to measure how much more likely a given extreme weather event was thanks to anthropogenic influences on the climate. A 2006 documentary by former US Presidential Candidate Al Gore really helped put Climate Change and Global Warming on the map as a public issue of concern. Yet throughout this era we continued to emit more and more GHGs and add to the problem, pumping more CO2, more Methane, more Nitrous Oxide into the atmosphere. And at the same time, we started to reduce emissions of climate-cooling aerosols by ‘cleaning up’ the fossil fuels we were burning (reducing sulfur). The rate of global warming began to accelerate.
Crisis Phase
A “crisis” is defined online as “any event or period that will lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, or all of society.” We are undoubtedly there now. Scientists warn of tipping points - or the beginning cascade into new systems - if we cross a 1.5∘C. A recent review article, for instance, noted that “tipping cascades cannot be ruled out on centennial to millennial timescales at global warming levels between 1.5 and 2.0 ∘C or on shorter timescales if global warming surpassed 2.0 ∘C.” Currently we are at 1.3∘C and steadily climbing. Most prominent scientists now agree limiting warming to 1.5∘C is effectively impossible. We have evidence of massive unprecedented extreme weather events which attribution studies confirm would have been far, far less likely or far less severe without anthropogenic climate change - like the massive wildfires we saw across Canada last year, or the incredible flooding we saw in Pakistan the year prior, and so on…
Some climate skeptics refute the “critical” nature of this problem, by pointing to selective narratives. Usually, these are: a) extreme weather is not statistically increasing alongside global warming; b) global warming is resulting in less cold deaths; and c) when levelled for GDP, the costs of climate change are not increasing. But these are fundamentally misleading claims, as they don’t tell the full story of what’s happening. I’m not going to refute all of these claims here because this has already been done; For instance, see here for Part 1 of a three-part series by Andrew Dessler addressing the claim of global warming causing less deaths; and see here for a critique of the idea that GDP-normalization suggests climate change is not getting more expensive. Or see the IPCC’s latest comprehensive report (AR6), which clearly states that increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather is an “established fact”…
Most importantly, the skeptics’ claims about there being no crisis because of the number of deaths and its meagre influence upon GDP completely misses the point. To arrive at a “climate crisis” we don’t need to see evidence of mass death or global economic catastrophe. Rather, we need evidence of instability and danger. Not only is that clearly what we’ve seen thus far, but the trajectory is moving further into this realm of instability and danger - from corral bleaching reaching unprecedented levels; global warming events resulting in food inflation; heat stress resulting in rising levels of migration; the erosion of cultural institutions like the Rideau Canal Skateway and winter Olympics, the annihilation of Arctic Indigenous cultural practices due to massive changes to their environment; the melting of ice sheets and sea ice and associated sea level rise; the rise in wet bulb heat mortality … on and on the list of impacts goes, and this is merely at 1.3∘C. The conclusion that we are deep in the throws of a “crisis” is irrefutable.
The Next Phase
Recall how the originating causes of a transition in problem phase occurred BEFORE that phase itself began. This suggests that what we do NOW in our present era of Crisis will determine what the next phase of the problem cycle will be. What comes next after the Crisis Phase? Will it be a phase of "Collapse” or “Degeneration”? Or will it be a Phase of “Intervention” or “Restructuring”? Will the alcoholic seek help, go to rehab, and get sober? Will the liar come clean, and open up to the full truth? It’s time to shape the next phase.
Hi Ryan - good stuff as usual. But I'm a believer. Here are more narratives from fossil fuel addicts: "we're all f*cked so what can I do?" Or "yeah climate change is real but technology will save us." Or "it's just weather, dude. Don't freak out." Or "I agree climate change is real but I can't change my own behavior". Or "touch my car and I break your face." Or "why should I care about flooding in Bangladesh?" Or "don't be such a Debbie Downer". Or simply I'm going to stand here with my head in the sand because the problem is too big and scary for me. Your next post I hope?