News and Outreach: John Reilly

John M. Reilly | Co-director, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Worldwide, people are learning to live with less gas, but that's a habit hard to keep.

The price of oil has fallen nearly 60% since peaking in June, and lately there's been a lot of ink and pixels devoted to the question of whether oil prices will plunge even further or whether they will shoot right back up. An even bigger issue is whether prices will stay at these very low levels.

While I doubt oil prices will fall much more — how much further could they reasonably tumble? Perhaps another $20 or so? — history suggests we can expect prices to remain low for the foreseeable future. What's playing out right now in the oil market is likely the same supply-demand dynamic we've seen over and over: several years of extremely high oil prices followed by decades of low prices. The twin oil shocks of the 1970s, for instance, resulted in 20 to 25 years of low prices.

Of course, things are different today — but not that much different. Over the past six or seven years, oil has been relatively expensive, often trading at over $100 a barrel. During that time, both the supply and demand sides of the equation have responded.

On the supply side, high prices have spurred investment in oil and gas exploration. Even as OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) has maintained steady production, the U.S. is experiencing a drilling revival and the shale industry is booming. Oil production is up in other countries, too. Canada has boosted its crude oil production, as have Russia and Libya. With more oil on the market, prices predictably have fallen.

On the demand side, many developed countries — including the U.S. — are using less oil.Policies such as CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) have helped improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. Consumers, meanwhile, have recently demanded higher-mileage cars.

There are sociological forces driving oil prices down, as well. For instance, people are more likely to live in cities (rather than car-critical suburbs) and choosing to walk or bike more.

The upshot is that unless the world changes dramatically, we should expect oil prices to remain low for at least the next 10 years. On the supply side, investments in production will continue to bear fruit; and history suggests the forces on the demand side will play out for another decade or two — or at least until people forget about high prices.

Read the full article here.

Bobby Magill
Climate Central

Water stress — the general scarcity of freshwater for people who need it — is considered by many scientists as one of the biggest challenges facing humanity and struggling ecosystems in a world increasingly affected by climate change.

Studies differ on how much the world’s growing population will be affected by the growing difficulty of finding freshwater, but a new report by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found that climate change could actually provide more water to people in some parts of the globe while reducing freshwater for other areas.
 
Global warming may increase the overall amount of freshwater flowing in rivers worldwide by about 15 percent, easing water scarcity in many places, including the U.S. Midwest, according to MIT’s Energy and Climate Outlook 2014, released Monday.

By the end of the century, during which time greenhouse gas emissions could double globally, the MIT outlook projects that water scarcity could also ease in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and Western Europe. In other places, water stress could worsen, especially in the U.S. Southwest, Pakistan, Turkey, South Africa and parts of North Africa.

“All climate models predict a speedup of the hydrological cycle with warmer temperatures,” said the study’s lead author, John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT’s Center for Environmental Policy Research. “That means faster evaporation, more moisture in the atmosphere and more rainfall.”

MIT researchers project that while more moisture in the atmosphere will increase freshwater flow 15 percent globally by the end of the century, consumption of freshwater for all human uses worldwide is expected to increase 19 percent, including water for industrial, domestic and agricultural uses.

Of those uses, the outlook shows that domestic freshwater consumption could double from 348 billion cubic meters in 2010 to 698 billion cubic meters in 2100, and industrial use of water could increase from 763 billion cubic meters to 1,098 billion cubic meters, or about 45 percent. Irrigation use is projected to decline slightly worldwide.

But more freshwater doesn’t paint the full picture. In a warming world, how and if that water can be made available for people to use gets complicated.

Exploding human populations may overwhelm water supplies, creating new areas of water stress, according to the outlook.

“This water stress arises because of increased water demand, and in some cases reduced runoff,” Reilly said. “As with almost all climate models, we project more precipitation poleward, and generally drier conditions in subtropical regions.”

And, freshwater availability depends on how and when it falls from the sky.

“Water stress, or not, is very much a function of precipitation in the right place at the right time, and in the right form,” Reilly said.

Rain may begin to fall at times when it can’t be used for irrigation or can’t be captured for storage in reservoirs, he said.

A big concern is precipitation falling as rain rather than snow, or snowpack melting earlier in areas that depend on snowmelt, such as much of the western U.S., he said.

“Snowpack is nature’s water storage, slowly releasing water far into summer dry months and therefore providing even timing even when summers are dry,” Reilly said. “With less snowpack storage, we would need to make up for it by building reservoirs where possible.”

A drought-ravaged village in Mauritania. Credit: United Nations/flickr Building new reservoirs is a costly proposition, and they’d have to be built to handle the added challenge of capturing water from extreme rainfall.

“There is a general conclusion that more rain is likely to come in heavier downpours, with longer periods in between,” he said. “So that raises the specter of both flooding and drought because in a heavy downpour most of the water runs off, and unless there is man-made storage somewhere, it quickly ends up in the sea, and is no longer fresh water.”

That’s a major concern in Rocky Mountain states such as Colorado, which contains the headwaters of some of the most important rivers in the West, including the Colorado River, which provides water to drought-stricken Phoenix and Los Angeles.

Spring snowmelt in Colorado could come up to 17 days earlier than today, and some rivers the state relies on for fresh water supplies could see streamflows decline by up to 35 percent, according to a 2012 Colorado climate vulnerability study.

“As the climate warms, more water will evaporate and sublimate from mountain snowpacks before it ever reaches reservoirs, and agricultural demand will rise,” meaning that there will be less water to go around as a booming population conflicts with a decreasing and less predictable water supply, Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Scott Denning told Climate Central in January.

The MIT report cautions that any projections of regional precipitation patterns and the processes that control runoff from mountain snowpack in a warming world are extremely uncertain, and rain and snowfall are likely to vary widely from year to year and decade to decade.

Not all studies focusing on water security have shown water stress easing much at all in a warming world.

A 2013 study by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact and Research showed that declining precipitation and increasing evapotranspiration will strain water supplies in many areas, especially the U.S. Southwest, affecting 2 billion people globally.

A Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) study published in August showed that without any climate policy curbing global greenhouse gas emissions, half of the world’s population is will be living under “extreme” water scarcity by the end of the century.

These studies reach different conclusions because there are multiple ways to measure water stress: Some studies focus only on water supply, while others, such as the MIT report, focus on both supply and demand. Each study also uses its own assessment of hydrology, the effects of climate change and other factors, said PNNL climate scientist Mohamad Hejazi, lead author of the PNNL water scarcity study.

In some cases, studies may significantly underestimate overall water deficit in some areas in a warming world, he said.

“This (MIT) study constitutes one plausible scenario, but it is not definitive,” he said.

MIT’s report was published Monday following the United Nations Climate Summit in New York the previous week, when the Obama administration committed to greenhouse gas emissions cuts to be included in a treaty expected to be signed in Paris in 2015. The Paris negotiations will be known as COP 21, or the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

by BusinessGreen staff

MIT has added its voice to the cacophony of scientific institutions presenting warnings on the true scale of projected climate impacts, with the publication of a new report arguing we are currently on track to far exceed the 2C temperature goal set by the international community.
 
The 2014 Energy and Climate Outlook, published earlier this week, predicts that based on current emission reduction commitments the world is likely to see temperature increases of 3.3C to 5.6C by the end of the century, well above the 2C mark that scientists have warned could trigger "dangerous" levels of irreversible climate change.
 
"Our world is rapidly changing," said John Reilly, co-director of the MIT Joint Program and a coauthor of the report, in a statement. "We need to understand the nature of the risks we're facing so we can prepare for them."
 
The report also modelled scenarios where world leaders agree a deal at next year's Paris Summit to curb emissions, but it warned that even with ambitious new commitments to curb emissions post 2020 the world was still likely to release enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2040 to make it unlikely that the 2C goal will be met.
 
"There is some uncertainty associated with these estimates," said Erwan Monier, a research scientist at the Joint Program and a coauthor of the report, in a statement. "The fact is that there is uncertainty about future emissions, and also in the climate's response to those emissions. Yet, it is clear that we are not meeting the 2C target based on current efforts alone."
 
In addition, the report recognises that clean technologies will make "some headway", but it predicts the global energy system will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels in the coming decades as global energy use doubles by 2050.
 
"Population and economic growth are key drivers of change," said Reilly. "Developing countries like China and India are growing fast, and will play a big role in future emissions. They're also facing the unique challenge of trying to plan for this growth under a changing climate."

The report highlights the scale of the climate adaptation challenge faced by political and business leaders, and warns that disruption to water supplies could present a particularly acute risk to future economic development.
 
It predicts that rising temperatures will lead to a net increase in freshwater supplies of around 15 per cent this century as the hydrological cycle accelerates. But it also expects global water demand to increase 19 per cent, leading to increased water stress.
 
In addition, it predicts that higher temperatures could lead to significant changes in the distribution of precipitation and the timing of rainy seasons, posing a threat to growing seasons.
"These pressures on water will mean increased focus on making sure there is enough water where and when it is needed," said Charles Fant, a postdoctoral associate at the Joint Program and a coauthor of the report. "This can be done by transporting water to where it is needed, building more storage, or conservation and efficiency efforts."
 
The report came as the UK's Met Office this week confirmed that it expects this September to by the driest since records began in 1910, with exceptionally low rainfall for many parts of the country. It is also likely to finish in the top five warmest Septembers on record, with UK mean temperatures significantly above the monthly average.

Trust in technology: That seems to be the underlying message of a coming report from the world's top panel on climate change.

Scheduled for release on Sunday in Berlin, Germany, the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will point to many possible ways—from burying greenhouse gases to going nuclear to encouraging biofuel production—to save humanity from the ravages of climate change.

[…]

A Hard Climb

A 1992 United Nations agreement broadly obligated the world to limit global temperature increases to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) over preindustrial levels. Some studies have noted significant dangers—chiefly, lower farm production—if the planet warms beyond that point.

"The most interesting and useful thing the new report could do would be in simply laying out all the paths we could take to not breach that limit," says MIT economist John Reilly. "Most people think it's very unlikely we are going to stay within that [3.6-degree] limit."

The IPCC Working Group 3 report, based on six years of economic and technology studies, will lay out innovations and reforms in power generation, industry, transportation, farming, and other fields that might help nations to reduce emissions. Yet many of the scenarios examined in the report also look at what the world might do if the 3.6-degree limit is passed and temperatures rise still higher.

"Based on the studies that are already out there, I think we can say the sooner emissions are reduced, the easier it becomes to reach those goals," Edmonds says.

Written by 235 scientists from 53 nations over four years, the report on climate change mitigation is the third in a series released in the past year. The IPCC has released such reports in groups every six to seven years since 1990.

IPCC reports synthesize scientific studies to present policy options to government leaders. The two earlier reports enumerated the near-certain evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for increasing temperatures worldwide over the last century, and detailed the impacts on people, wildlife, and the environment.

"The IPCC is not going to solve the political problem that is at the bottom of things," Reilly cautioned. "A lot of the studies [considered] in the report started from the premise that we already were doing something about carbon reduction. That didn't happen."
 

Read more...

By Stephanie Paige Ogburn
ClimateWire

Every seven years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes three colossal reports about global warming.

The second of that set of three, focusing on impacts and adaptation, was just released, and on its heels have come calls for the structure of those reports to change.

On Friday, David Griggs, a professor and director of the Monash Sustainability Institute at Australia's Monash University, who has been involved in the last three IPCC reports, was the latest to weigh in with a proposal for reconfiguring the IPCC.

The comment, published in the journal Nature, addresses the burden the IPCC places on scientists, who volunteer their time, and the frequency of the reports.

Griggs argues for publishing shorter, less frequent reports, every 10 years, pointing out that the past three science reports from Working Group I have lengthened from 410 pages to 881 pages to 1,535 pages with the report released late last year.

[...]

Another past lead author, John Reilly, who is now co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has also written on some of his frustrations with the report.

Reilly, who wrote about the topic in MIT Technology Review, believes the report would be more powerful if it integrated science, adaptation and mitigation rather than producing three separate efforts.

Looking for more focus

"I think streamlining the IPCC process would be extremely important. It has gotten extremely burdensome in terms of these three separate working groups all doing a lot of work. If anything, reduce it down to a single volume that better integrates the three elements of the problem," Reilly said.

He pointed out that if someone wants to learn about how climate change is affecting tropical storms and hurricanes, he or she would have to find that information inside the publication produced by the IPCC's Working Group I, which is focused on science.

"Then if you want to figure out how to adapt to them, you have to go to Working Group II and dig into several chapters," Reilly added.

Read more...
 

John Reilly
Co-director MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

The difficulty of predicting local effects of climate change makes a compelling case for preventing it.

This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a major report focused on what actions might or could be taken to adapt to climate change. It attempts to describe who and what is especially vulnerable to climate change, and gives an overview of ways some are adapting.

The report makes clear that specific estimates of how climate change will affect places, people, and things are very uncertain. Brought down to a local level, climate change could go in either direction—there are risks that a given area could get drier or wetter, or suffer floods or droughts, or both. This uncertainty makes efforts to prevent climate change even more important.

Specific risks to natural systems are well documented by the report. It finds, for example, the greatest risks are to those ecosystems, people, and things in low-lying coastal areas, because expected sea-level changes are in only one direction, up. This is also the case in the Arctic, where the temperature rise is expected to be much greater than the global average. There is good science and unanimous agreement among climate models behind these assertions.

But a frustrating aspect of the report—and a reflection of the difficulty of working in this line of research—is that very few specific risks to humans are quantified in a meaningful way. For example, one might ask: has my risk of death increased because of more hot days? The report says, “Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors (medium confidence).” This seems to state the obvious, while giving no indication of whether the alterations may have increased or decreased risk or what the magnitude of the alteration might be. Given that the statement seems to say little, it is hard to imagine there is not high confidence.

The report does conclude with high confidence risks to low-lying coastal areas: emergencies during extreme weather, mortality from heat, food insecurity, loss of livelihood in rural areas due to water shortage and temperature increases, loss of coastal ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on them, and loss of freshwater ecosystems. But again, this high confidence comes with an absence of quantification of how many/much and the degree of risk. Will extreme weather double, triple, or quadruple the number of extreme emergency weather-related events of a given magnitude (dollars or lives lost)? Will it increase these incidences by 10 percent, or will some areas face increased risk while other areas face reduced risk?

In the end, the report is a compendium of things that might happen or are likely to happen to someone or something, somewhere. But what does this actually mean for me, or anyone who might read the report? I would avoid beachfront property. If my livelihood depended on a coastal resource, I would try to find a different job, or at least urge my children to pursue another line of work.

That is where a measure of wealth brings some resilience—I have those options, others do not. The report “quantifies” in some sense by establishing an element of “relative risk,” concluding that the poor and marginalized in society are more vulnerable because they do not have the means to adapt. Beyond this, it is not clear that climate prediction is at a high enough level to offer information that I can use to take concrete actions for most day-to-day decisions and investments.

What the report does provide is some documentation of adaptation in action—what different regions, cities, sectors, and groups are doing to adapt—concluding that there is a growing body of experience from which to learn.

However, perhaps the greatest truth in the report is in the following statement:

“Adaptation is place and context specific, with no single approach for reducing risks appropriate across all settings (high confidence). Effective risk reduction and adaptation strategies consider the dynamics of vulnerability and exposure and their linkages with socioeconomic processes, sustainable development, and climate change.”

Hence, while it’s possible to learn from others’ adaptation experiences, in the end, the specifics of climate change in my place, given my circumstances, and the socio-economic environment in which I live will present me with very different climate outcomes and opportunities to adapt than you will have where you live.

This fact alone raises the cost of adaptation, because to some degree each recipe needs to be invented anew. What worked in the past likely won’t work in the future—or at least, not as well. And we need to process a lot of highly uncertain climate projections in developing the new recipe.

The report also concludes, not surprisingly, that risks increase and extend to more people, places, and things if the global temperature rise is three degrees Celsius or greater than if there is only a one-degree rise. Overall, the report provides, in my judgment, a compelling case for more serious mitigation efforts—the topic of the next IPCC report, to come out later this month.

John Reilly is the co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.