#9 Weather - can we achieve - justice...

Weather Justice

Can we actually blame individual organisations for specific extreme weather events?!
Yep! - replied the scientific community
…a pretty huge step for environmental legislation.

The question first arose 14 years ago by Professor Allen, in a time when it was claimed 'impossible' to attribute extreme weather to emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHGs):

Allen, 2003

Article 8 of the Paris Agreement reminded everyone that 'climate change' is defined as 'a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity', so understanding the what (and the who) is driving these changes in extreme weather is so important if we are to do anything about it. It is not just a question of practicality, but a question of morality, and I think this will become very clear with some of the cases explored in this post.

Indeed, weather and climate services have expanded rapidly in recent years; 5 day cyclone path forecasts are now the global standard, whereas only 20 years ago even a 3 day forecast could prove to be very misleading, and 5 day forecasts are as accurate as the 2 day forecasts 25 years ago.

That’s great right? Unfortunately, not for everyone; weather and climate information services were assessed this year in terms of the flow and use of the information globally and showed an increase in data did not mean at all an increase in global access for informing long-term decision making. FIGURE:

Can we make progress?

Otto et al., 2017 has now proven that you CAN link a country's GHGs and aerosol emissions to extreme events. So, then maybe will countries start taking responsibility if science is pointing the finger at them? The team chose the Argentinian Heatwave of 2013 as a case study, responsible for killing at least 7 people and described as the worst heatwave since records began in 1906 showing a +2.5° C anomaly with respect to 1961-90.

BBC, 2013

Previously shown to have been made 400 percent more likely due to anthropogenic warming, this is what they found:

• The biggest emitters, the EU28, were responsible for making the heatwave 19-60 percent more likely 

• The US made it 34%-28% more likely

• 'Smaller traditional emitters' such as China and India increased the heatwave risk by 21-18 percent, and 11-10 percent respectively. 

This can be compared to other extreme events:

• The Artic heatwave of mid-November 2016 - on 11th November reaching -7 degrees, that's 15 degrees above normal for that time of year, was made a 1000 percent more likely by anthropogenic emissions, with the EU28 and the US individually doubling the likelihood:

Shows increasing likelihood of heatwaves in the North Pole

Why is this so important? In our discussion, Dr.Otto directed me to a recent article in The Economist. I discovered here the example of the Hurricane Katrina court-case, running from 2005-2012. Residents of Mississippi went against 34 big carbon emitters blaming them partially for the extremity of the event. However, even if this had been true, the case ended up being dismissed as a result of insufficient science to prove their case. 

Another case, Juliana vs the United States 2015,  is still currently being fought; action is being taken against the Federal Government stating it has violated constitutional rights by causing dangerous CO2 concentrations, yet knowing the dangers for at least 50 years.

insideclimatenews.org

CLF are also fighting for New England residents, claiming ExxonMobil should be exposed for knowing as early as the 1970s that climate change was caused by human activities, but instead funded "aggressive campaigns" attempting to spark doubt about the climate science and lying to governments. They are said to leave oil in populated locations they know are at increasing risk from extreme weather (notably storm surges). 

The most moving part of the CLF blog was a recent post this September: 

"Exxon was in court last week to get our case dismissed, with its lawyers claiming that extreme weather is not an imminent threat.

...

Ultimately, the judge disagreed with Exxon and stated that storm surges, severe rainstorms, and sea-level rise are indeed imminent threats today."

*The case was allowed to move forward*

For me, this is an amazing step forward. It is proof that advances in extreme event attribution are providing people with the science to fight back, by proving that extreme weather IS an increasing threat due to anthropogenic emissions and that certain organisations DO hold an enormous responsibility in mitigating these risks. Perhaps if those fighting the case of Hurricane Katrina had a strong scientific backing, the results would have been very different.