The Governor's Conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California's Future

I finagled an invitation from Governor Jerry Brown (we had known one another in high school and for the brief time he was a Jesuit seminarian) to attend his, by invitation only, conference on extreme climate risks and California's future, held Dec. 15th at the Academy of Science, San Francisco. The topic is of longstanding interest to me and I am committed to write a chapter on climate change for a book this coming spring.

The one day conference gathered 300+ participants, representing climate scientists, public safety officials, insurance representatives, public health and public utility representatives, farrmers, those responsible for emergency responses. In his initial keynote to the conference, Govenor Brown argued that " The main thing we have to deal with in climate change is the skepticism, the denial and the cult-like behavior of the political lemmings that would take us over the cliff." The anomaly is that 97% of scientists in peer reviewed articles all agree that: (1) Climate change is occurring; ( 2) While it is, partially, a combination of natural cyclical behaviors and human activity, the human activity is the main cause of rising climate and ( 3) If we do not take measures to mitigate the climate rise, the costs of addressing it or adjusting to it rise exponentially. Moreover, at some point, a catastrophic turning point may make the impact of climate change almost impossible to adjust to. But a large proportion of the American political class are in denial. As one speaker at the conference put it, we know when we insure our houses against fire or earthquake, we act with some uncertainty. But when we know the risks are real and the potential costs of those risks are large, we are irresponsible not to act to protect our house. Why should the logic differ about climate change ? Another speaker, wittily, remarked: the birds do not read the scientific literature but somehow they are migrating earlier because of a change in weather patterns.


There were some debates at the conference about emphasis on mitigation versus adaptation. Both seem necessary. When asked by Felicity Barringer who writes about climate change for The New York Times whether the emphasis should be mitigation ( i.e. forestalling a rise of above 2 degrees Celsius) or adaptation, Governor Brown said he wanted to " make California the leader in renewable energy." This points more to mitigation. Yet much of the conference addressed the issues of adaptation to changes already under way and likely to accelerate: snow pack melting earlier in the year, causing floods and water depletion; sea level rise which endangers salt water intrusion (especially in the Sacramento Delta which supplies so much fresh water to the San Joaquin Valley for drinking and agricultural purposes); a dramatic expansion of the fire season in California; the equal expansion of the number of extremely warm days in the state--with its threats of heat exhaustion and also the outbreak of fires; the danger that fires could jeopardize the California electrical grid.

All of these changes ( already evident) are putting severe pressure on California's infra-structure at a time when a budget crunch makes it harder to come up with the money needed. Protection of the Delta fresh water from contamination is pressing and needs imminent action by raising the sea-wall protections  against sea water intrusion from rising sea level. Other infra-structure issues include improved drainage systems; transportation; early warning systems to help people take useful precautions against fire, floods; information systems. It is not clear hospital emergency systems are up to par if the number of extreme heat days increase exponentially , e.g., when extreme heat waves hitherto happening once in 20 years begin to occur once in 2 years.

Brian Murphy, Executive Vice President and Chief Claims Officer for Farmers' Insurance group, recounted that there were more extreme weather events ( fires, floods, tornadoes) in 2011 than any other time in the past twenty years. He noted that he has seen, in his thirty years at Farmers' Insurance, already four extreme weather events calculated as happening only once a century. He argued that strong action to mitigate or adapt to climate change makes very good business sense. Losses due to weather changes now range in the 200 billion dollar a year range.

Not all was doom and gloom, however. Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, placed as much emphasis on the opportunities ( including green jobs and manufacturing) as the risks. He was quite optimistic that alternative fuels ( including bio-fuels and a re-catching and re-use of spent carbon dioxide from steel mills) could easily dramatically reduce the carbon footprint of international air-flight. He urged a sector by sector emphasis for mitigating climate change. He got asked, however, what he would do when the ordinarily predicted sea rise floods the San Francisco and Oakland Airports ?

Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, Chief of the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ( the group had been meeting, for the first time, in the United States, in San Francisco, at the time of the Governor's Conference) put a great emphasis on retro-fitting and building more energy efficient new buildings. A very large proportion of greenhouse gases comes from wasted energy use in buildings. He noted that some 95% of the detrimental impact of climate change will occur initially in the third world which lacks the kind of money to jack up the dykes ( as The Netherlands is now doing) or building protective sea walls as many in California are contemplating.

While much that I heard during that day was not terribly new to me since I have been following the debates and literature about climate change somewhat closely for some six or so years, I did come away with a renewed awareness of two factors. One, the impact on the economy of not acting is quite dramatic. Productivity of workers can be reduced by as much as 60% on extreme heat days. The possible impact on California's prime industry ( agriculture) of increased heat could be drastic. Climate change seems to have deleterious impacts on California special crops, such as apricots, almonds, grapes for wine, artichokes, figs, kiwis, olives and walnuts. One study at the University of California, Berkeley estimated that economic costs to the state from climate warming could total from $7 to $46 billion a year. All sectors could suffer extreme losses: water resources ( $5 billion); energy ( $2.7 to $6.3 billion); tourism and recreation ( $98 billion); real estate ( upwards to $3.9 billion); agriculture and forests and fisheries ( a possible $4.3 billion); public health ( $3.8 billion). Of the state's $ 4 trillion in real estate assets, $2.5 trillion would be at risk from extreme weather events. I also became more aware of how much needs to be done at local levels, preparing emergency rooms for extreme heat days, protecting the grid from fire damage etc.

Jesus once said that we should look around and learn from the birds of the air. Paradoxically, by changing their migratory patterns due to weather shifts, they are showing us that skepticism about climate change is, indeed, only suitable for the lemmings who would lead us over the cliff!

John A. Coleman, S.J.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Tom Maher
6 years 10 months ago
Governor Brown is just not an authoritative source on any subject let alone the highly controversial and complex study of world climate.   The subject of climate is a very long way from being a  science with proven theories that have reliable predictive power.   There is no proven theory that explains or predicts world climate systems even paritially.  What we have now is conjecture on what scientist think climate may be  about and what may happen at some unknown time later in the future. 

Without a proven theory that can reliably predict climate behavior forming climate policy is without reliable basis. For instance some scientist counter conjecture that the earth's climate has self-correcting mechanisms that counter acts excessive buildup of heat and gases. Attempting to regulate nature therefore is excessive and extreme. Earth's atmoshere is massive and is not likely to be effectively manipulated by man's feeble efforts.  And again all the dynamics of earht's atmoshere are not known.  So our efforts are not likley to be primitively ineffective and wasteful. 

Why onvest compulsively in massive government public work projects that can not be shown to have a reliable beneficial effect on the assertions of politcians who are known for favoring massive government spending programs?  Isn't that why Califronia has a chronic budget problem and today can not pay it's bill? 
Stanley Kopacz
6 years 10 months ago
Handwaving, fuzzy, nonscientific arguments from ideological conservatives cannot counter the hard work of climatologists, 98% of whom agree that the CO2 increase is real and caused by human burning activity.  Of course, the scientifically illiterate majority can be swayed by argument from ignorance.  This is not politics, it is science.  An increase from 250 ppm to 390 ppm since the start of the industrial age is quite significant.  Climate deniers are the flat earthers of our day, blinded by their concretized belief system.  I say "flat earthers" because they haven't even advanced to the less erroneous equivalent of a round earth at the center of the universe.  However, some are geocentrics and some even accept global warming, though they say it is not caused by humans.  Sorry, folks, the carbon isotope data is in and vulcanism isn't nearly strong enough.  For goodness sake, we're burning whole mountains of carbon.  What took eons to sequester is being buned in mere years. It all boils down to aprioristic "don't worry, be happy" thinking.  I don't care how it's done or what economic or political system accomplishes it.  We're trying to save civilization and humankind here.
Tom Maher
6 years 10 months ago
Everyone should recongize the subject of climate change and its solutions are highly controversial.  Proponents of climate change should make their case in clear, compelling terms that can be understood.  The fact is climate change advocates have so far failed to engage the public with a certain definition of the problem and ways to address the problem that make sense.

Name calling opponents "political lemmings" as Governor Brown does will not advance the case for climate change and its consequences.  Governmor Brown actually disapproves of skepticism about climate change as if climate change is old established sacred doctrine that can not be questioned.  But the essence of science is skepticism and constant questioning where nothing is above review even very old and well accepted theories.   Intreestingly scientist are always testing the validity of Einsteins theories even though these theories have repeatedly been proven to be mostly correct for more than a century.  Nevertheless significant revison to Einstein theories did have to be made.  But climate change is not establsihed theory.  It is very new a could very likely be a fad in whole or in part. 
The burden of proo?f is on the proponents to g???????????ive clear and compelling reason?s? ?f??o?r? ?w?h?y? ????????c?l??????????????????????????????????????l?i??m?a?t?e? ?c?h?a?n?g?e???? ??i?s? ????????a???? p?r?o?b????????l?e?m? ?t?h?a?t? ?n?e?e?d?s? ?t?o? ?b?e? ?a?d?d?r?e?s?s??e???d?.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
David Cruz-Uribe
6 years 10 months ago
"Everyone should recongize the subject of climate change and its solutions are highly controversial."

Except there is no controversy in the scientific community:  the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists supports the outlines of what Jerry Brown said.  The only controversy exists among climate skeptics who do accept the clear results of the science.  To refer to climate change science as "not established theory" is simply wrong. 

"But the essence of science is skepticism and constant questioning where nothing is above review even very old and well accepted theories."

You are confusing scientific skepticism, which is a healthy attitude and part of the scientific method, with the skepticism which denies anything and everything.  Scientists are continually testing the current theories of climate change and the existing models.  They are constantly being refined as new data comes in and new scientific work is done.  But the basic physics-that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere-is over 100 years old and beyond doubt.   Check out the peer-reviewed literature on the subject and you will find this.  It is not a "fad" and calling it this does not change the reality of the situation we, humanity, are facing.

Also, do not confuse the science with the proposed solutions.  There are many proposed solutions; most involve state and government intervention simply because the problem is so vast that the market is not seen as beling able to respond effectively.  But there are people who argue that with the right economic incentives, the free market can address this problem.  This is what the carbon-tax was intended to do:  to quantify a real cost (the harm caused by adding more C02 to the atmosphere) and let business and industry respond to this cost in any manner they felt was the most efficient. 


The latest from america

Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018
Kevin Clarke tells us about his reporting from Iraq.
Olga SeguraOctober 19, 2018