Originally created in 2004, Prometheus is a project of University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Prometheus is designed to create an informal outlet for news, information, and opinion on science and technology policy.
The last few weeks have flown by, and it is hard to believe I have already been in Nairobi for nearly a month! I have fully settled into my apartment, which is conveniently located near the Kenya Red Cross Headquarters. I look forward to my walks to work every morning and evening as part of my daily routine. They gave me a brand new desk at the office, which has been recently renovated and is sparkling clean. I was initially hesitant about the open office layout, but am finding it to be a refreshing reprieve from the isolation of my cubicle I was accustomed to at CU Boulder. The atmosphere is both friendly and professional, energized and collaborative, with the constant chatter of keyboards clicking and discussions in nearby board meetings. Every morning I am greeted by warm welcomes and freshly made chai which I am told requires at least two teaspoons of sugar! The workspace offers both opportunities for collaboration as well as the opportunity to make a few friends along the way.
Last week, I attended a series of workshops held at the decadent Boma hotel owned by the Kenya Red Cross. The topics of discussion primarily surrounded flooding and the implementation of early warning and early action systems to forecast impacts. The data team presented their findings from fieldwork conducted recently to assess the impacts of the recent flooding events that occurred in Narok county earlier this year. There was shocking footage that depicted swift rivers running through the middle of towns and roads so severely eroded they formed deep, impassable crevices. These flood related impacts are short-onset in nature, which are visible on the landscape immediately following an event. This got me thinking about how droughts and related impacts which are more slow-onset in nature are inextricably linked.
While the main focus of Forecast-based-Financing (FbF) has been on floods, the tides are shifting to more of a focus on early action to mitigate impacts related to droughts, which has never been successfully implemented before. As part of my work on Forecast-based-Financing (FbF), I will be focused primarily on impacts-assessment to assess magnitudes of drought that will be used to set reliable thresholds for early action. On Friday, I met with my supervisor, Maurine Ambani, to discuss methodology and to start to develop the process of how to define the thresholds for drought-related impacts to define magnitudes that can be used as thresholds for early action. Based upon a set of prioritized indicators by key stake-holders in the last Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting, I am compiling an exhaustive list of what indicators have been used previously to measure drought-related impacts and at what spatial and temporal scale the data is available.
The work poses some serious challenges due to the nature of drought which is slow-onset and difficult to define. Drought means something different depending on who you ask, and there is no universal definition. In fact, Lloyd-Hughes (2014) argues that such a universal drought definition would be impossible to achieve, let alone impractical. This is because different people will feel different effects at varying degrees of severity, thus any definition should consider the context of drought mechanisms in a particular place. In East Africa, drought occurrence is frequent but has been difficult to forecast attributed to various natural and anthropogenic factors along with inefficient forecasting capacities (Gebremeskel et al., 2019). It is an insidious problem that, unlike other disasters, disasters related to drought continue to tighten their grip over time, destroying lives and livelihoods in its path, tearing at the social fabric of society by destroying entire areas. Recurrent drought impacts continue to undermine livelihoods and exacerbate local conditions of poverty, health, and food security as past events continue to repeat themselves (Muller, 2014). Thus, development interventions must shift from being crisis-driven to an impacts-focused approach to implement precautionary, rather than reactionary, interventions.
Gebremeskel Haile, G., Tang, Q., Sun, S., Huang, Z., Zhang, X., & Liu, X. (2019). Droughts in East Africa: Causes, impacts and resilience. Earth-Science Reviews, 193, 146–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.015.
Muller, J. C.-Y. (2014). Adapting to climate change and addressing drought – learning from the Red Cross Red Crescent experiences in the Horn of Africa. Weather and Climate Extremes, 3, 31–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.03.009.
How influential has the right-wing think tank Heartland Institute been in shaping the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agenda under the Donald J. Trump administration? That was the main question that motivated a March 2018 lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Southern Environmental Law Center. The legal suit claimed that the U.S. EPA failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request from six months earlier that demanded correspondence between the Heartland Institute and the EPA specifically about their red team-blue team proposal for evaluating scientific evidence of climate change (Reilly, 2018).
In its first year in power in the United States, the Trump administration proposed to form an adversarial red team to debate and debunk the science of climate change (seen as a blue team perspective) (Siciliano, 2017). In so doing, this approach effectively sought to restructure the peer review process and elevate outlier and contrarian views in the public arena. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt introduced this military-strategy-style approach to evaluating climate research for policy applications, by proposing television debates to advance science in the public arena (Volcovici, 2017). Through this red team-blue team proposal (enlisting the help of the Heartland Institute), Pruitt began to identify potential contrarian scientists and economists as participants (Waldman, 2017). While a red team-blue team approach may be losing support both inside and outside the Trump administration, Pruitt has told the Heritage Foundation that there are ongoing plans to constrict climate science under the guise of reform (Wald-man & Bravender, 2018 ).
Numerous events in recent years like these have re-calibrated contrarian considerations in the public arena. Developments like these have pointed to the reality that ideological polarization around climate change issues – particularly in the United States – has increased in the last thirty years (Dunlap, McCright, & Yarosh, 2016) and that media have also played a role in this trend (Carmichael, Brulle, & Huxster, 2017). These kinds of actions have also marked novel approaches to climate change countermovement or think tank strategies to oppose various forms of science and policy engagement from the local to national and international scales (Cann & Raymond, 2018). Read more …
Despite growing support, respondents still have concerns when it comes to scientific transparency and integrity.
Public trust in science rose in recent years, a new survey shows: 86 percent of Americans say that they have at least “a fair amount” of confidence in scientists to act in the public interest, up from 78 percent in 2016.
“As a scientist, I’m pretty cheerful about that,” Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University who studies trust and was not involved with the survey, tells The Washington Post. The results show scientists now rank slightly ahead of military leaders and well above religious heads, journalists, and business executives when it comes to trust.
The Pew Research Center conducted the survey in January 2019, asking randomly selected adults living across the 50 US states to take a self-administered web-based survey: 4,464 individuals participated.
The results showed that faith in scientists often depends on the researchers’ line of work. “Trusting a group or profession comes from thinking about what their intentions and motives are,” Fiske says. “The motive of the research scientist can be murky. But with a doctor, you assume [the motive] is to help people.”
For example, survey respondents said that 47 percent of dietitians provide accurate information about nutrition recommendations all or most of the time while only 24 percent of nutrition scientists were thought to be honest when discussing their research. Medical doctors also appeared more trustworthy to the participants, with 48 percent believing they offer sound recommendations versus only 32 percent for medical research scientists.
Race was also a factor in trust, specifically for medical scientists: African Americans and Hispanics were more skeptical than whites of these researchers.
Scientists’ transparency is one of the major issues preventing trust. Fewer than 20 percent of respondents said scientists are open and honest about potential conflicts of interest with industry all or most of the time, and survey participants also had doubts that scientists regularly admit their mistakes. “When you look at issues of scientific integrity, we see widespread skepticism,” Cary Funk, director of science and society research at the Pew Research Center and a coauthor of the report, tells NPR.
Perhaps the most promising step scientists have taken is to enter the public arena and talk about their science, Max Boykoff, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, tells Science News. More early career scientists are engaging with the public about their work and making it accessible to non-scientists, and more scientists are advocating “for facts, empirical evidence, solid methodologies.” Boykoff says. The March for Science events are evidence of such advocacy and a push for accessibility, he notes.
Survey respondents said that they have more confidence in science if the data are made publicly accessible and the findings are peer reviewed. “I think part of what’s going on here,” Fiske tells the Post, “is that the more [people] know, the more they trust.”
These days, it can seem as if science is under assault. Climatologists are routinely questioned about what’s really causing global warming. Doctors can be disparaged for trying to vaccinate children against disease.
But for the U.S. public at large, scientists are generally seen as a trustworthy bunch. In fact, 86 percent of Americans hold at least “a fair amount” of confidence that scientists work for the public good, according to a survey released August 2 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.
That’s far better than how respondents felt about what motivates politicians (only 35 percent said they were fairly confident that elected officials acted in the public interest), journalists (47 percent) or even religious leaders (57 percent). And that general trust in the goodwill of scientists has grown steadily over the last four years, from 76 percent in 2016.
But confidence falters on narrower questions of scientists’ trustworthiness. For instance:
The kind of scientist matters. Nearly half — 48 percent — thought doctors gave fair and accurate information, but only 32 percent thought the same of medical researchers. Dieticians also were considered trustworthy by 47 percent of respondents, while that number fell to 24 percent for nutrition scientists. Overall, scientists whose work involved engaging with the public tended to be more trusted than those focused on research;
How research is funded matters. More than half of respondents — 58 percent — said they are less trusting of studies financed by industry. And there’s skepticism that scientists reveal all of their industry ties: Fewer than 2 in 10 people thought scientists always disclosed conflicts of interest with industry, or faced stern consequences for failing to do so;
Sometimes, who is being asked matters. On questions of scientific misconduct, black and Hispanic respondents were more likely than whites to see it as a “big problem.” That could reflect wariness due to past cases of experiments being conducted without patients’ consent, such as the decades-long Tuskegee Study in which hundreds of black men with syphilis were denied treatment (SN: 3/1/75, p. 134), the Pew report notes. Or it could reflect the fact that, when it comes to environmental justice, these communities are often more likely to be affected by unchecked pollution (SN: 12/6/97, p. 366).
“The issue of trust in scientists is part of a broader conversation that society is having on the role and value of experts,” says Cary Funk, the director of Pew’s science and society research. “What we wanted to do was get a look at the potential sources of mistrust.”
Conducted from January 7 to January 21, the survey questioned 4,464 randomly selected adults who are demographically representative of the U.S. population, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9 percentage points. It focused on three scientific fields: medicine, nutrition and environment. But it did not look at specific topics that have become highly politicized, for example, childhood vaccination campaigns (SN: 6/8/19, p. 16) or climate change (SN Online: 7/28/17).
The growing trust in scientists is “really great to see,” says Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. But the fact that so few people had faith in scientific transparency and accountability was “a bit disheartening to me as a scientist,” he says. There are systems in place to prevent scientific misconduct and penalties “if, for example, you’re caught plagiarizing or fabricating results,” he says.
The introduction in March of congressional legislation called the Scientific Integrity Act marks a positive step toward building public trust in science, Carter says. The bill aims to prevent political interference in scientific policy and to allow government scientists to share research with the public, among other things.
The survey also found that 60 percent of Americans believes scientists deserve a place in debates over crafting science policy — though that result reveals a partisan divide. Among Democrats, 73 percent wanted scientists at the table in policy discussions, but that fell to 43 percent among Republicans.
Still, those numbers are encouraging, especially in a national survey covering all 50 U.S. states, says Max Boykoff, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Empowering scientists to step into these [policy] arenas is great,” he says. “Certain kinds of advocacy, I would argue, are part of their responsibility: advocacy for facts, empirical evidence, solid methodologies.”
Overall, scientists have been more willing to step into the public arena in recent years. Thousands of scientists and science advocates joined the first annual March for Science in 2017 in Washington, D.C. (SN Online: 4/22/17). Journalists have become more interested in covering science stories, and social media is carrying messages further across society. Boykoff noted that younger scientists especially have been open to speaking about their work, which has helped to make science more accessible to the public.
And, in fact, the survey found that people overall were more trusting of research in areas that they were more familiar with. Two other key factors boosted confidence, too: whether research data was made publicly accessible and whether findings were reviewed by scientific peers.
“Trust is important to legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness,” Boykoff says. “Without trust, scientists would just be screaming into the wind.”
A drilling area in North Dakota can be seen in this nighttime image of the United States.
The Electricity Journal (2019) by Utkarsh Srivastava, David Oonk, Ian Lange, and Morgan Bazilian
Abstract: This paper considers whether the reform of North Dakota’s natural gas flaring policy provided large operators a competitive advantage, leading to increased market concentration. North Dakota was the highest gas flaring and venting state in USA until it was taken over by Texas in 2015 coinciding with the implementation of its gas flaring policy in 2014. Two analyses are performed in North Dakota (and Wyoming, as a control) to compare the effect that the flaring policy had on the state’s oil sector. The analyses show mixed evidence, larger firms gained an advantage leading to fewer smaller firms operating in the state. The paper concludes with highlighting possible further areas for research, and methodologies for acquiring more reliable data. Read more …
Universally applicable notions of climate adaptation success are not realistic—adaptation is ever-changing, and implemented at local levels with wildly different baseline conditions. In a new Nature comment, CSTPR faculty Lisa Dilling and international colleagues ask: is adaptation success a flawed concept?
The Paris Agreement established a global goal on adaptation and invites parties to review the effectiveness of adaptation actions. However, the measurement of adaptation success remains elusive. Focusing on the capabilities of households and governments to pursue a range of adaptation futures provides a more robust foundation.
The Paris Agreement established a global goal on adaptation (Article 7, para. 1) and invites Parties to “review the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptation” in a global stocktake (Article 7, para. 14c). Creating universally applicable measures of adaptation success remains elusive, however, given that most adaptation projects are implemented at the local level and start from wildly differing baseline conditions. Further, the adaptation process is never truly ‘finished’ in a changing, evolving climate1. Berrang-Ford et al.2 propose tracking government adaptation policy instruments as a way to assess progress. However, these and other approaches do not address what constitutes ‘success’, focusing instead on government planning, or how vulnerability is changing — and leaving open the questions of vulnerability of whom, to what, and who decides. In this Comment, we propose that the focus should be on bolstering and measuring the capabilities of individuals and institutions — capabilities that are necessary to pursue a range of resilient futures and adaptation goals.
We know from experience in other fields that developing metrics to define progress or success can be challenging. Although technologies of assessment might appear apolitical, in fact they privilege certain worldviews and processes over others3. Read more …
Founding CSTPR Director, Roger Pielke, Jr., testified before the House Science Committee hearing on Scientific Integrity in federal agencies.
His testimony focuses on the importance of scientific integrity policies within federal agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee research and the current status of these policies. In an appendix Pielke offers specific comments on H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act. His testimony is dedicated to the memory of Radford Byerly, Jr., 1936-2016, who was a staff member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology from 1978-1987 and from 1991-1993 served as the committee’s staff director.
Four Take-Home Points
Scientific integrity legislation is important and necessary. Careful attention is needed to ensure that such legislation integrates well with existing, related policies;
It is essential to distinguish science advice from policy advice, and both types of advice should fall under scientific integrity policies;
Individual researchers and studies are essential to the process of science, but science best guides and informs policy when it has been assessed by scientific advisory bodies to characterize the current state of knowledge on a particular topic or to present possible policy options – including perspectives on uncertainties, disagreements, areas of ignorance;
Good science and policy advice from experts also results from the upholding of scientific integrity by elected and appointed officials.
Every year, hundreds of people participate in Boulder’s Tube to Work Day, an event for which Boulder Creek is flooded with people ostensibly commuting to work by inflatable device. It’s a yearly extravaganza only made possible by enthusiastic volunteers, a sense of adventure on the part of everyone participating, and an accurate knowledge of streamflow.
Steamflow is the amount of water flowing in any river or
creek—in this case, Boulder Creek—at a given time. It varies enormously based
on the amount of rainfall and snowmelt that are adding to the water supply, and
sometimes this variation can be unpredictable.
In a prime example of how unpredictable streamflow can mess with even the best-laid plans, this year’s Tube to Work Day (the twelfth annual event) was delayed by a week due to high flows. According to Jeff Kagan, one of the founders and organizers of Tube to Work Day, the ideal streamflow for Tube to Work Day is between 150-200 cubic feet per second. This speed ensures that the water isn’t dangerously high and fast, while still providing a good time.
Jeff Kagan, co-founder of Tube to Work Day’s founders and organizers in 2018.
Kagan has said in the past that if the streamflow is ever over 300 cubic feet per second on Tube to Work Day, the event will be postponed. The U.S. Geological Survey site reported that Boulder Creek was about 660 cubic feet per second on July 2nd, about a week before the event was originally scheduled to take place. As a result, the event was postponed to make sure the creek wasn’t dangerously high.
“We were looking on track through early May, and then we
just had a very strange spring and early summer… Right around July 5th
I saw the streamflow climb to a record high for that date,” said Kagan.
“Knowing that our event was scheduled one week later, it was a pretty easy call
to just say ‘we’re going to postpone.’”
Kagan then had to choose a date to postpone until, knowing that it would be hard to exactly predict what Boulder Creek was up to so far in advance (This year’s TTWD is Friday, July 19). Luckily, the research he did with the help of other Boulderites panned out.
“We consulted with the city events manager, the Boulder water resource department, and a water hydrologist up at Betasso,” said Kagan. “I think we chose a good date. The water is still a little higher than anticipated, but it has come down to a much more manageable level.”
Figuring out if and when it’s safe to go tubing isn’t the only reason you might need to know about streamflow, however. Streamflow data allows fly fishermen to choose times and places to cast lines. The data is also used to validate flood models and improve flood forecasts. For both recreation and safety, having accurate information about how much water is flowing in Boulder Creek can be very important.
CSTPR Director, Max Boykoff, participating in 2018’s Tube to Work Day.
One way to find this information is to use the online resource “Rocky Mountains-High Plains Climate Dashboard”, hosted by the University of Colorado Boulder’s Western Water Assessment. From there, you can find multiple resources that have information about streamflow, temperature, snowpack and drought in the Rocky Mountains. The streamflow information is part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System, which collects data from river sites around the country every 15-60 minutes. The data is collected by automatic recorders and manual field measurements and is sent to USGS offices via satellite, telephone, and radio telemetry—quite the data collection feat.
But for everyone coming to Tube to Work Day this Friday,
Jeff Kagan has done the work for you—the water will be tube-able, even if it’s
quite fast.
“Anyone coming to float—it is not a lazy river, this is not
a passive float,” warned Kagan. “There are always a percentage of people who
come expecting a chill float, and this is more of a modified white-water
experience.”
As Kagan further stressed, everyone should be prepared on Friday with a helmet, close-toed shoes, and a wetsuit. Also, a waiver is mandatory! So if you want to save some time, you should preregister online. But as soon as you’ve done that, the streamflow is yours to measure: if by “measure”, you mean “float rapidly downstream on in the midst of hundreds of enthusiastic commuters.” Have fun!
Tube to Work Day Pre-Registration closes at 10pm on Thursday, July 18. Missed the “boat?” Come to Eben G. Fine b 7:45am on July 19 to sign your day-of waiver.
Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people, and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no ‘silver bullet’ to communications about climate change; instead, a ‘silver buckshot’ approach is needed, where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts. This tactic can then significantly improve efforts that seek meaningful, substantive, and sustained responses to contemporary climate challenges. It can also help to effectively recapture a common or middle ground on climate change in the public arena. Readers will come away with ideas on how to harness creativity to better understand what kinds of communications work where, when, why, and under what conditions in the twenty-first century. Read more …
“When it comes to science communication, no topic is more fraught with politics and pitfalls than climate change. Max Boykoff deftly navigates the minefield of climate communication by providing a range of informed perspectives and insights into how to communicate the science and its implications. Creative (Climate) Communications is a great resource for practitioners and novices alike.” Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor, Penn State University and co-author of The Madhouse Effect
“The world failure to act on climate change is not primarily the result of a failure to communicate. But ineffective communication does make it easier for denial and disinformation to reign. This important book helps us to understand what works and what doesn’t work in climate communication, and why. A must-read for anyone involved in this issue.” Naomi Oreskes, Harvard University
“I appreciate the intent of this book: to make “a creative shift from ‘turning on each other’ to ‘turning to each other’ for support and collaboration.” Nothing short of that will be needed to get through the climate crisis. This is a book that makes real and practical the “cultural turn” in climate communications and asks us to tap our oldest and most unique human capacities to do so: our emotions and our imagination to connect with each other and make sense of the transformative journey we have embarked upon. In doing so, it implores us to be authentic, ambitious, accurate, imaginative and bold in climate communications and this book is just that. A great accomplishment!” Susanne Moser, independent scholar and consultant
“Effective climate communication is an emerging area that has lacked an authoritative text – until now! This innovative, accessible book unites cutting-edge theory with practice. It synthesizes the peer-reviewed literature, existing approaches to effective climate communication, and representations of climate change in the media. If you’re looking to be informed by the latest theory, research, and practice in climate engagement and outreach, this is a must-read.” Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University
“With this book Boykoff splendidly articulates the creative thinking and approaches necessary to find common ground and move forward in our engagement with climate change. In an exemplary and engaging style of writing, Boykoff moves with elegant ease and superb scholarly insight through a wealth of research, comment and opinion to interrogate the growing body of knowledge on the successes, failures and challenges of climate change communication. And he proceeds – with an admirable command of contemporary, historical and philosophical context – to offer clear and optimistic guidance on promising pathways to effective engagement on climate change.” Anders Hansen, University of Leicester
June media attention to climate change and global warming roughly doubled from June 2018, while trending slightly lower (-9%) from high levels in May 2019.
At the country level, coverage was notably up in Spain (+8%), Sweden (+8%), India (+67%) and through international wire services (+8%) as well as global radio segments (+26%) in June.
Figure 1 shows trends in newspaper media coverage at the global scale – organized into seven geographical regions around the world – from January 2004 through June 2019.
The increase of 67% from the previous month in Indian media coverage of climate change – across The Hindu, The Times of India, The Indian Express and the Hindustan Times – can be attributed in part to record-breaking and sustained heat waves across the country in June, with temperatures peaking at 45.6 degrees Celsius or 114.08°F in New Delhi. For example, journalist Jacob Koshny from The Hindu reported, “critical groundwater resources, which accounted for 40% of India’s water supply, are being depleted at ‘unsustainable’ rates and up to 70% of India’s water supply is ‘contaminated’”. Furthermore, an editorial from Hindustan Times noted, “India, in any case, is facing the worst water crisis in its history. According to NITI Aayog, by 2020, 100 million will be affected by a shortage of groundwater in 21 Indian cities. And about 40% of the population will have no access to drinking water by 2030. It’s not too difficult to discern why India is facing such an acute crisis. A report released by McGill University and Utrecht University blames irrigation techniques, industrial and residential habits combined with climate change for this problem”. Stories of severe heat compounding existing drought and water scarcity issues throughout India (and particularly in Northern India) provided news hooks for media stories. Also, stories of declining water levels in the India, Ganga and Brahmaputra basins, partly attributed to the rapid retreat of the Himalayan glaciers feeding these river basins generated media attention in India. And the impacts of heat waves on energy demands, particularly in cities, drove increased coverage.
In addition, United States (US) media coverage increased in June: coverage in the US was up 5% in print media and nearly 47% on television compared to the previous month. When this increase across outlets is disaggregated, one can detect a slightly different set of trends (see Figure 3). These show that in fact most of these increases are due to increased coverage at The New York Times followed by increases at The Washington Post in print, and on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC in television, coverage. In fact, these increases across US media coverage of climate change in recent months are occurring in spite of rather than because of more abundant coverage in the leading US network news organizations – ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, and PBS Newshour* – along with US prestige press outlets – The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.
For example, one day in the print edition of The New York Times – Wednesday, June 5 – nearly outpaced coverage across the entire month in The Wall Street Journal (which carried a total of 11 stories in June). Stories on that day addressed issues associated with climate change including ‘Biden’s Plan for Climate Action Goes Beyond Obama’s Goals’ on the front page above the fold, international news of the Danish elections and how “climate and immigration fuel the divide” (page A5), news of protests in London to US President Trump’s visit, with mention by journalist Ceylan Yeginsu of one placard on the street reading ‘climate change is real, your tan is not’ (page A6), a story about climate change motivating France to end the disposal of $900 million in unsold goods each year (page A8), coverage of an ongoing US federal court case regarding whether young people have a constitutional right to be protected from climate change (page A10), a story by reporter Kendra Pierre-Louis on research into avoided deaths associated with climate mitigation and adaptation commitments in line with the Paris Agreement (page A20), a Nicholas Kristof op-ed addressing the role of climate change in migration patterns (page A26), and story by journalist Brad Plumer entitled ‘Companies Expect to Feel Climate Change’s Bite in 5 years’ (page B4). Read more …
RSS
RC/RCCC Notes from the Field: Settling in and Beginning to Conceptualize the Impacts of Drought
Sarah Posner (left) with a co-worker at the Kenya Red Cross
Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre Internship Program
by Sarah Posner
Sarah Posner is the 2019 Junior Researcher in the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCRCCC) program. She is a Masters student in the Geography Department at University of Colorado Boulder.
View photo gallery in the field by Sarah Posner
The last few weeks have flown by, and it is hard to believe I have already been in Nairobi for nearly a month! I have fully settled into my apartment, which is conveniently located near the Kenya Red Cross Headquarters. I look forward to my walks to work every morning and evening as part of my daily routine. They gave me a brand new desk at the office, which has been recently renovated and is sparkling clean. I was initially hesitant about the open office layout, but am finding it to be a refreshing reprieve from the isolation of my cubicle I was accustomed to at CU Boulder. The atmosphere is both friendly and professional, energized and collaborative, with the constant chatter of keyboards clicking and discussions in nearby board meetings. Every morning I am greeted by warm welcomes and freshly made chai which I am told requires at least two teaspoons of sugar! The workspace offers both opportunities for collaboration as well as the opportunity to make a few friends along the way.
Last week, I attended a series of workshops held at the decadent Boma hotel owned by the Kenya Red Cross. The topics of discussion primarily surrounded flooding and the implementation of early warning and early action systems to forecast impacts. The data team presented their findings from fieldwork conducted recently to assess the impacts of the recent flooding events that occurred in Narok county earlier this year. There was shocking footage that depicted swift rivers running through the middle of towns and roads so severely eroded they formed deep, impassable crevices. These flood related impacts are short-onset in nature, which are visible on the landscape immediately following an event. This got me thinking about how droughts and related impacts which are more slow-onset in nature are inextricably linked.
While the main focus of Forecast-based-Financing (FbF) has been on floods, the tides are shifting to more of a focus on early action to mitigate impacts related to droughts, which has never been successfully implemented before. As part of my work on Forecast-based-Financing (FbF), I will be focused primarily on impacts-assessment to assess magnitudes of drought that will be used to set reliable thresholds for early action. On Friday, I met with my supervisor, Maurine Ambani, to discuss methodology and to start to develop the process of how to define the thresholds for drought-related impacts to define magnitudes that can be used as thresholds for early action. Based upon a set of prioritized indicators by key stake-holders in the last Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting, I am compiling an exhaustive list of what indicators have been used previously to measure drought-related impacts and at what spatial and temporal scale the data is available.
The work poses some serious challenges due to the nature of drought which is slow-onset and difficult to define. Drought means something different depending on who you ask, and there is no universal definition. In fact, Lloyd-Hughes (2014) argues that such a universal drought definition would be impossible to achieve, let alone impractical. This is because different people will feel different effects at varying degrees of severity, thus any definition should consider the context of drought mechanisms in a particular place. In East Africa, drought occurrence is frequent but has been difficult to forecast attributed to various natural and anthropogenic factors along with inefficient forecasting capacities (Gebremeskel et al., 2019). It is an insidious problem that, unlike other disasters, disasters related to drought continue to tighten their grip over time, destroying lives and livelihoods in its path, tearing at the social fabric of society by destroying entire areas. Recurrent drought impacts continue to undermine livelihoods and exacerbate local conditions of poverty, health, and food security as past events continue to repeat themselves (Muller, 2014). Thus, development interventions must shift from being crisis-driven to an impacts-focused approach to implement precautionary, rather than reactionary, interventions.
Gebremeskel Haile, G., Tang, Q., Sun, S., Huang, Z., Zhang, X., & Liu, X. (2019). Droughts in East Africa: Causes, impacts and resilience. Earth-Science Reviews, 193, 146–161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.015.
Lloyd-Hughes, B. (2013). The impracticality of a universal drought definition. Theoretical and Applied Climatology,
Muller, J. C.-Y. (2014). Adapting to climate change and addressing drought – learning from the Red Cross Red Crescent experiences in the Horn of Africa. Weather and Climate Extremes, 3, 31–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.03.009.