Disastrous Consequence – The Impact of Climate Change

By: Josh Herring

Intense rainfall, flooding, water shortages, less predictable weather patterns, droughts, and more frequent natural disasters will all happen as a result of climate change. Climate change, by definition, is long term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Since the industrial revolution and the invention of the combustion engine, the main driver for climate change has been humans with the burning of fossil fuels.

Climate change today is a talking point because numerous studies and climate models find that, if not confronted today, the warming of the atmosphere will cause cataclysmic damage to the earth when it reaches 2 degrees Celsius.

The current temperature threshold goal is preventing a one and a half degrees increase in the global temperature because after that point, the likelihood of species extinctions – both animal, including human, and plant – increased catastrophic natural disasters such as hurricanes and droughts, and scorching temperatures will more than double, expert projections say.

There is an important stipulation. "Climate change always happens," Dr. Mitra, a climatologist at Auburn University reiterates. The term itself has become unclear as it doesn't discern itself from global warming and the broader sense of the word as it relates to millennia of climatological changes. However, there is a key interpretation as it relates to the modern use of the term.

"The major concern about this anthropogenic impact and the modern climate change is the rate of change. How fast we are changing, how fast we are adding on this greenhouse gases, which are sort of extra on what we already had. We always had, you know, carbon dioxide and methane and everything in the atmosphere," Mitra says.

Dr. Vachula, a paleoclimatologist at Auburn University highlighted this disparity in the rate of change with an analogy.

"I almost think of it as like a, you know, like climate is like a naturally winding river, right? So it's always gonna go back and forth, back and forth kind of at its own pace.

And then what we've done is very quickly changed the flow in a way that has never occurred before in all of our records. And so that rate, the rate of change, is unprecedented," Vachula says.

Dr. B. Graeme Lockaby, a wildlife & forestry professor at Auburn University and an expert of urbanization and urban sprawl along with the biogeochemistry of wetland areas, has already started seeing some of the effects of climate change in cities. “The function of the wetlands changes completely where climate change comes in,” Lockaby says.

Serving as a barrier or “filter”, wetlands serve a vital purpose in the preservation of water. The role of urbanization is intertwined with wetlands and can often harm them. This is amplified by climate change and can have drastic effects on access to viable water.

For example, Lockaby mentioned the drought of 2008 that affected the Southeast. Atlanta, due to its position along the Chattahoochee River near the top of the river basin, puts the city at a disadvantage when droughts happen as it will dry up fastest.

Lockaby recalls Atlanta looking to capture water rights of the Chattahoochee in other states to supplement these kinds of issues. “They're searching for ways to maintain their water supply. And there was a big legal battle between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida over the Chattahoochee River who had the rights to draw water outta there.”

Lockaby says if another drought were to happen today, the results could be devastating, violent, even – “I know that’s going through their mind already.” But climate change isn’t limited to people in big cities and urban areas.

Climate change will affect everyone, all over the globe. Sea levels are rising and are expected to rise at least another foot, as high as 8 feet if the world continues to output carbon emissions at the same rate by 2100, according to NASA. Sea levels rise as a result of melting ice in the Arctic areas along with expanding as the sea warms. Rising sea levels can cause increased flooding, especially along coastlines, where land tends to sink.

Additionally, those who live along the coastlines will be adversely affected as sea levels rise, practically eliminating access to beaches. Coral reefs serve as a gauge on the effects of climate change on the sea, in particular. Their usual lively, colorful ecosystems have increasingly become victim to bleaching and acidification, which alters the water pH and thereby, the chemistry of the water around reefs, according to the National Ocean Service.

Over time, there will be a lack of food, especially with those that live in food deserts – defined as “an urban area in which it is difficult to buy affordable or good-quality fresh food,” says Dutko of the United States Department of Agriculture.

The food issue is worryingly ingrained because agriculture is responsible for about 30% of the world’s energy consumption. At the same time, the actions taken to produce the food will ultimately lead to scarcity of viable soil, decreased crop yield, increased temperatures changing the length of seasons, and food waste, according to projections from NASA.

A conversation that arises from the food and hunger issue is sustainability – a mission that relies on “meeting human needs now and in the future in a fair, just, and equitable way while protecting and maintaining healthy ecosystems in perpetuity,” as described by an Auburn student majoring in environmental science and works as a sustainability intern, Randy Martin. He recalls the quote from the Office of Sustainability’s wall on the campus.

Sustainability is a multifaceted and stepping-stone approach to combating climate change. Take Camille Colter for example, a biosystems engineering major and a sustainability intern as well at Auburn University. She has gone mostly meat-free in her diet, as the meat industry produces greenhouse gases, specifically methane gas, “from cow farts, they fart a lot,” she explained.

With this she’s tried convincing her friends to try the diet as an attempt to educate about diet choices and how it relates to sustainability and climate change. Martin shares similar sentiments, finding a struggle in convincing those close to him that climate change is a pressing issue.

“I think the conversation I have with my uncle all the time is, you know, yeah, I hear you. You know, those are important points that you bring up. Let me tell you about, you know, kind of why actually addressing climate change even helps your point,” Martin recalls telling a family member. And while it doesn’t always resonate with everyone, the attempt to educate can be hit or miss.

Some people deny that climate change, or its effects, are dire. Perhaps one of the most pertinent examples is the state of Alabama’s state climatologist, John Christy. Christy is a lifelong, adamant “contrarian” who, after seeing the effects of the lack of energy in Africa during his time as a missionary, is deeply rooted in lobbying for the continued use of fossil fuels. He is well-noted by other scientist as heralding false scientific processes and data collection techniques.

Christy has served as a mouthpiece for contrarian ideologies, most prominently under former president Trump’s administration, which had a staunch anti-climate change and environmental agenda. He serves on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board.

Christy’s presence is often met with dismissive attitudes as many scientists believe he is operating outside a realm of rationality in both his scientific methods and personal beliefs. Kevin Trenberth, Christy’s former thesis advisor, has described his ideals harshly. “Certainly his heart is in the right place, with great empathy for the Africans he was with, but his brain is not,” Lavelle of Inside Climate News gathered from Trenberth.

The two sides often rival each other bitterly and it partially highlighted by the politicization of the hot-button topic. Political parties, particularly in the United States, integrate the topic into their platforms, usually advocating for or against what climate change is, and isn’t. However, the divisiveness of the issue won’t solve anything in a timely manner.

Ashley Gann, chief meteorologist of CBS42, calls for a bipartisan approach to the conversation. “Climate change is happening, but it is something that we have to really look at the balance between what is naturally occurring versus how we are contributing. And rationalizing both sides of the coin instead of ostracizing camps of people [is important].”

President Biden at COP27

Ideally, this was the goal of the United Nations Climate Change Conference that happens annually, in the Conference of Parties (COP), as they meet to confer on the issue of climate change.

In 2015, the Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty on climate change was signed by all members of COP21. However, in the most recent conference, COP27, held in Egypt, much of the talking points from seven years ago are the same, with governments apprehensive about mandating sustainable energy sources.

The most important measure of this year’s conference was not progressive in actively combating climate change, but instead guaranteed countries that have already, or will in the future, suffer from the effects of climate change will be funded – with the Loss & Damage Fund for Vulnerable Countries – as they don’t actively contribute to the emission of carbons that result in climate change, a press release from United Nations Climate Change says. It is unclear who will be providing these funds, highlighting the largely symbolic nature of the conferences.

Additionally, the results of the conference did not bring optimism. According to the Emissions Gap Report, released annually before the conference, the future is “a bleak picture,” and that “without rapid societal transformation, there is no credible pathway to a 1.5°C future,” the threshold that the COP is aiming to limit global warming to.

It is apparent that rather than tackling climate change, countries, in the interest of business operations, are opting for adaptation over action. Is adaptation the answer?

Lockaby echoes sentiments that most climate scientist do today as governments shrug off the notion of immediate danger. “I mean, I think that we can adapt. My fear is that we won't adapt until it's right in our face like a train hitting us,” he says.

Despite the largely negative denotations of the implications of climate change, most are still hopeful for a better future. Martin is adamant for a better future as he has kids that will see the effects of climate change the most. “We have so many levers to pull to ease that suffering as time goes out. And that's the thing that's really got me hopeful because, it's fine if it's me, like I'll figure this out kind of thing, you know? But making sure that in the future that we're pulling all the levers we can to make humanity and people thrive, I mean it’s so important,” Martin insisted.

Colter shared similar sentiments. She agreed there is hope for the future. She adds, “I think we need to start now. We need to be doing little changes to make a greater impact.”

Since the future, especially legislation and infrastructural changes, lies within the next generation, Colter’s appeal echoes the larger concern of a group of people who will have to levy the effects of climate change. Hope, for most, is the key to tackling the behemoth that is climate change.