Interesting stuff although you might want to adapt the title slightly. I read it hoping to discover a smart way to explain risk multipliers, and a good run-down on probability in lay language. I really haven't found anything that gives people a clear idea of what on earth all these IPCC socio-economic scenarios are about and how they combine with climatological predictions. My lay attempt to cut through people's disinterest is to ask whether they know why people are scared of lions but not climate change. Always hits the mark, but doesn't actually say much - a lion in savanna:
is visible (there it is!)
has historical precedence (it ate your brother last week!)
is immediate (there is the lion - act now or be killed!)
has direct impact (the lion is going to eat you!)
has simple causality (the lion is going to eat you and you are going to be dead!)
is caused by an enemy (the lion!)
I think Daniel Kahneman was right - humans are perfectly adapted to ignore climate change.
I just got back from a backcountry skiing and avalanche safety course. The instructor literally went off the same risk framework for avalanche safety: Hazard, Vulnerability, Exposure.
It's serendipitous to see the exact same model applied to a different arena. Thanks Andrew!
A great breakdown of "climate risk" Andrew! We are not headed into an iceberg but it is headed unto us.
When I saw hazard, I immediately, subconsciously, prefixed the adjective "moral". Then prefixed"moral" to all of climate risk and it's components. In the end we'll lose at climate craps unless we care alot more.
Well done! The vulnerability reduction at the global scale is even more profound, most notably in Bangladesh with cyclone resilience causing a manyfold drop in fatalities from comparable storms in recent decades. If students ever need a vivid statement to crystallize the risk formula, I recommend what longtime IPCC-er Diana Liverman told me on Sustain What: "When we talk about climate risk, some people still just think it's the probability of the heat wave. But we need to think about risk not as the probability of the heat wave, but the probability of harm." Video is here: https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692389/shifting-the-focus-to-climate-risk
I like to refer to climate change risk as the Great Equalizer between the developed countries and the developing countries. And this isn't a good thing. The 'developed' nations have long felt pretty insulated from climate driven disasters. Not that they don't occur, but that the built environment was resilient to past hazards, and the ability to respond was robust given government finances and private insurance. Our systems were adequate for the challenge (with many shortcomings acknowledged). Climate change is causing these systems to be overwhelmed (for private sector systems like insurance to lose profit margins) and developed countries and its citizens to experience the environment like the rest of the world, one that instills fear and uncertainty. I'm of the view that many developing countries are in a better place to adapt to climate change as they don't have to cast off large intrenched systems such as insurance and large scale energy infrastructure. They can change faster given the goods provided mainly from China like solar and wind generation. Add in the cascading and compounding influence of the current forever disruption to the energy distribution systems based on oil and the future promises a great deal of change coming.
Is it worthwhile to discuss compounding and cascading risks? Not sure how in-depth you the book is going to be. These concepts are useful, and have a fair amount of literature. The chapter does get into some of the ideas that underly these concepts. But it could be a bit more explicit. The term 'threat multiplier' is nice catch phrase that gets peoples attention.
For those reading these comments, I'd like to note that I've described the historical development of ideas about impacts in perhaps excessive detail at https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm
... 2025 version, the 2026 annual update will be posted in a few weeks.
Many seem to be very worried about the rapid 15% greening of the earth over the last 3 decades. If this continues at this rate then asphalt could be in severe jeopardy. Perhaps 40 Cities could fund some research on this.
We are experiencing a very non linear increase of local and regional climate-related impacts surprising many scientists by how soon they are occurring: floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, stronger storms, etc, long before feeling the full effects of a rise in temperature of around 1.3°C above preindustrial times due to lags in the system.
Here are two near term global impacts which may already be locked in. But that we can try to minimize.
The first would be that within a decade or two we are projected to experience droughts worse than the Dust Bowl, severely impacting the breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline.
Shortly thereafter we'd be faced in that weakened state with retreat from the coastal areas where most of our large cities are located as the inherently unstable West Antarctic Ice Sheet begins a rapid retreat with the collapse of Thwaites Glacier and the rate of sea level rise accelerates dramatically along with increasing maximum storm strength.
It is difficult to imagine the planet being governable under those conditions. It is difficult to imagine us walking into this with our eyes open, but here we go.
Hello, great work. My query is on risk. In my work, Environmental Impact Assessment, Risk = likelihood x consequence. The chapter states 'climate' risk = hazard x exposure x vulnerability. My take is that 'consequence' captures: hazard x exposure x vulnerability. For a full understanding of risk you need to consider likelihood of an event occurring. So the question, does 'climate risk' consider likelihood? In risk assessment there is a marked distinction between high probability low consequence risks, and low probability high consequence risks. The later getting less attention. In a climate change situation the later will become more likely. I would recommend emphasizing that the probability of high consequence events is increasing. This requires a painful shift in planning as it will require greater effort, finances, and larger changes to how we live.
The hazard term contains likelihood of an extreme event occurring. Consequence would then be a function of exposure & vulnerability. So that's how I would connect your equation to mine.
Great information on climate risk! I think of the items in this chapter as a physical climate risk. Businesses and the economy have other types of climate risk such as regulatory risk, competitive transition risk, legal risk, and reputational risk. Will your textbook cover those forms of climate risk? If so, this chapter could be named physical climate risk.
Interesting stuff although you might want to adapt the title slightly. I read it hoping to discover a smart way to explain risk multipliers, and a good run-down on probability in lay language. I really haven't found anything that gives people a clear idea of what on earth all these IPCC socio-economic scenarios are about and how they combine with climatological predictions. My lay attempt to cut through people's disinterest is to ask whether they know why people are scared of lions but not climate change. Always hits the mark, but doesn't actually say much - a lion in savanna:
is visible (there it is!)
has historical precedence (it ate your brother last week!)
is immediate (there is the lion - act now or be killed!)
has direct impact (the lion is going to eat you!)
has simple causality (the lion is going to eat you and you are going to be dead!)
is caused by an enemy (the lion!)
I think Daniel Kahneman was right - humans are perfectly adapted to ignore climate change.
could you be a bit clearer on what you're looking for? how scenarios are produced? or how they are used to come up with hazard probabilities?
I just got back from a backcountry skiing and avalanche safety course. The instructor literally went off the same risk framework for avalanche safety: Hazard, Vulnerability, Exposure.
It's serendipitous to see the exact same model applied to a different arena. Thanks Andrew!
A great breakdown of "climate risk" Andrew! We are not headed into an iceberg but it is headed unto us.
When I saw hazard, I immediately, subconsciously, prefixed the adjective "moral". Then prefixed"moral" to all of climate risk and it's components. In the end we'll lose at climate craps unless we care alot more.
Well done! The vulnerability reduction at the global scale is even more profound, most notably in Bangladesh with cyclone resilience causing a manyfold drop in fatalities from comparable storms in recent decades. If students ever need a vivid statement to crystallize the risk formula, I recommend what longtime IPCC-er Diana Liverman told me on Sustain What: "When we talk about climate risk, some people still just think it's the probability of the heat wave. But we need to think about risk not as the probability of the heat wave, but the probability of harm." Video is here: https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692389/shifting-the-focus-to-climate-risk
I like to refer to climate change risk as the Great Equalizer between the developed countries and the developing countries. And this isn't a good thing. The 'developed' nations have long felt pretty insulated from climate driven disasters. Not that they don't occur, but that the built environment was resilient to past hazards, and the ability to respond was robust given government finances and private insurance. Our systems were adequate for the challenge (with many shortcomings acknowledged). Climate change is causing these systems to be overwhelmed (for private sector systems like insurance to lose profit margins) and developed countries and its citizens to experience the environment like the rest of the world, one that instills fear and uncertainty. I'm of the view that many developing countries are in a better place to adapt to climate change as they don't have to cast off large intrenched systems such as insurance and large scale energy infrastructure. They can change faster given the goods provided mainly from China like solar and wind generation. Add in the cascading and compounding influence of the current forever disruption to the energy distribution systems based on oil and the future promises a great deal of change coming.
Is it worthwhile to discuss compounding and cascading risks? Not sure how in-depth you the book is going to be. These concepts are useful, and have a fair amount of literature. The chapter does get into some of the ideas that underly these concepts. But it could be a bit more explicit. The term 'threat multiplier' is nice catch phrase that gets peoples attention.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll think about whether it makes sense to add something about that in this chapter or another one.
Both clear and comprehensive, good work!
For those reading these comments, I'd like to note that I've described the historical development of ideas about impacts in perhaps excessive detail at https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm
... 2025 version, the 2026 annual update will be posted in a few weeks.
Many seem to be very worried about the rapid 15% greening of the earth over the last 3 decades. If this continues at this rate then asphalt could be in severe jeopardy. Perhaps 40 Cities could fund some research on this.
The rapid reduction in cold related deaths is an issue of concern as well
Now list the benefits of a slightly warmer earth 75 years from now and a balanced discussion can be had.
We are experiencing a very non linear increase of local and regional climate-related impacts surprising many scientists by how soon they are occurring: floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, stronger storms, etc, long before feeling the full effects of a rise in temperature of around 1.3°C above preindustrial times due to lags in the system.
Here are two near term global impacts which may already be locked in. But that we can try to minimize.
The first would be that within a decade or two we are projected to experience droughts worse than the Dust Bowl, severely impacting the breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline.
Shortly thereafter we'd be faced in that weakened state with retreat from the coastal areas where most of our large cities are located as the inherently unstable West Antarctic Ice Sheet begins a rapid retreat with the collapse of Thwaites Glacier and the rate of sea level rise accelerates dramatically along with increasing maximum storm strength.
It is difficult to imagine the planet being governable under those conditions. It is difficult to imagine us walking into this with our eyes open, but here we go.
Hello, great work. My query is on risk. In my work, Environmental Impact Assessment, Risk = likelihood x consequence. The chapter states 'climate' risk = hazard x exposure x vulnerability. My take is that 'consequence' captures: hazard x exposure x vulnerability. For a full understanding of risk you need to consider likelihood of an event occurring. So the question, does 'climate risk' consider likelihood? In risk assessment there is a marked distinction between high probability low consequence risks, and low probability high consequence risks. The later getting less attention. In a climate change situation the later will become more likely. I would recommend emphasizing that the probability of high consequence events is increasing. This requires a painful shift in planning as it will require greater effort, finances, and larger changes to how we live.
The hazard term contains likelihood of an extreme event occurring. Consequence would then be a function of exposure & vulnerability. So that's how I would connect your equation to mine.
Great information on climate risk! I think of the items in this chapter as a physical climate risk. Businesses and the economy have other types of climate risk such as regulatory risk, competitive transition risk, legal risk, and reputational risk. Will your textbook cover those forms of climate risk? If so, this chapter could be named physical climate risk.
Yes, transition risk will be covered in another chapter.