00:00:02
We've invited Eran Michelle Kjan who is
00:00:05
the executive director of the Wharton
00:00:07
Risk Center to speak with us today about
00:00:10
a new study by one of the world's
00:00:13
foremost climate scientists Jim Hansen
00:00:16
and his 16 co-authors uh most of whom or
00:00:18
all of whom are also leading lights in
00:00:21
in the world of climate science. and
00:00:23
we're we're asking him to chat today
00:00:24
about uh what this uh striking new study
00:00:28
means for planet earth and also for
00:00:31
business. Sure. Um well, first of all,
00:00:34
as as we discussed before that hasn't
00:00:36
been peer reviewed, which means that we
00:00:39
still have to uh see what the community
00:00:41
will will will think about their
00:00:43
assumptions. These are models. So there
00:00:45
are the assumptions behind the models
00:00:46
but clearly they want to uh uh trigger a
00:00:49
big signal uh toward the international
00:00:51
communities. I think what what's
00:00:53
interesting to me is that we typically
00:00:55
refer to the IPCC as uh almost the
00:00:59
benchmarks today. What in reality the
00:01:02
IPCC is a consensus document. So a very
00:01:05
large number of scientists agreeing on
00:01:07
what number. So we basically will select
00:01:10
the lowest denominator and um and great
00:01:12
experience with the IPCC except that yes
00:01:15
we have to make assumptions on thing we
00:01:17
don't consider a very different sitting
00:01:19
here used to be the chief climate
00:01:22
scientist at NASA most of the co-authors
00:01:25
are top people in the field um you know
00:01:28
there are many top people but they are
00:01:29
among these groups from the US from
00:01:33
Europe from China so that's an
00:01:35
interesting coalition of author right
00:01:38
here. I think for many years we thought
00:01:40
we had the luxury to believe that well
00:01:43
we're facing a linear threat. So
00:01:46
basically next year would be a little
00:01:47
bit worse than last year but only on the
00:01:51
margin. And let's be honest about the
00:01:52
discussion about climate often pushing
00:01:55
the discussion in 2100 not really
00:01:57
telling the people what it means for me
00:02:00
tomorrow or for my kids tomorrow. Uh
00:02:02
what Enson is do now is well first of
00:02:05
all we don't have much time. They're
00:02:06
talking about 2050. So it's literally
00:02:09
almost tomorrow. And two, we're not
00:02:11
talking about increase of sea level by a
00:02:13
few feet. We're talking
00:02:15
about large large number uh 5 10 20
00:02:19
meters. Basically two, three, four, five
00:02:22
floor. So it's it's a very I mean if
00:02:24
that's true, that's a radical change in
00:02:27
the way we think about the impact of
00:02:28
climate change. Now the uh I just want
00:02:31
to mention the IPCC is the
00:02:32
intergovernmental panel on climate
00:02:34
change. I think they have a big meeting
00:02:36
in September and I believe that uh
00:02:38
Hansen has been quoted as saying they
00:02:40
wanted to get this study out. The reason
00:02:41
they didn't wait for a peer review which
00:02:43
would take months and months is that
00:02:45
they wanted to get this out in time for
00:02:47
this IPCC meeting uh I believe this is
00:02:50
correct in in September. So just just
00:02:52
point that out. Yeah. Yeah. And to their
00:02:54
I mean just for people to understand
00:02:56
it's typically peer reviewed before and
00:02:58
then published but the way that journal
00:03:00
works is the way it works. publish
00:03:02
first, then you invite the entire
00:03:04
scientific committee to comment and that
00:03:06
becomes peer-reviewed by a large number
00:03:08
of people. So, it's not negative that
00:03:10
hasn't been peer-reviewed, right? Uh and
00:03:12
there's not an excuse to tell that
00:03:13
they're right or wrong. Um so, that's
00:03:15
just to keep and that journal is the
00:03:17
atmosphere, chemistry, and physics
00:03:19
discussion journal. So, it is literally
00:03:22
a journal for discussion. So, it's
00:03:24
different than a peerreview. Okay. Very
00:03:26
good. So uh so potentially a big change,
00:03:30
a geometric change rather than a linear
00:03:32
change is what's being talked about
00:03:33
here. What does obviously that means
00:03:36
that coastal cities like New York City
00:03:39
could be in big trouble. We've heard
00:03:41
talk about other so many coastal cities
00:03:44
uh if people have to migrate inland and
00:03:46
if it happened very quickly there could
00:03:48
create great conflict. So we like to
00:03:50
hear a little bit about that. But then
00:03:52
also from the business side, this could
00:03:56
change how companies pay for insurance
00:03:58
who maybe you can't get insurance.
00:04:01
Nothing immediate of course, but it
00:04:03
sounds like if the evidence for this
00:04:05
starts to to turn up o over the next
00:04:08
couple years that it's it will be
00:04:09
getting taken even more seriously. So
00:04:11
yeah. Well, if you take the United State
00:04:13
of our example here, about 40% of our
00:04:16
population live in coastal areas. So
00:04:18
it's not just New York or Miami. It's
00:04:22
lot number of people affected here. So
00:04:25
you can think about a real estate
00:04:26
implication. You know your apartment or
00:04:28
your house used to worth $500,000 now no
00:04:31
one wants to buy it. So I mean the
00:04:33
implication could be massive. uh
00:04:35
insurance companies are obviously
00:04:37
looking at these type of analysis very
00:04:39
carefully because what is insurable
00:04:41
today may not be insurable tomorrow or
00:04:44
if it's still insurable will be
00:04:45
insurable at double the price or triple
00:04:47
the price depending on what the risk is.
00:04:50
Uh I think the big discovery again is
00:04:52
it's that tipping point almost the fact
00:04:54
that uh we may wake up one day it's not
00:04:57
one day but we can wake up in 20 2025
00:05:00
2030 and in a matter of two or three
00:05:02
years see rapid sea level and that's
00:05:05
what people have been um have been
00:05:07
fearing for years because you don't have
00:05:09
the time to adapt. If you have 50 years,
00:05:11
100 years, if you're the the chairman of
00:05:13
the board, you can talk to your board of
00:05:14
directors saying, "Well, this is a new
00:05:16
environment that our firm will have to
00:05:18
live in in 20 years from now. What do we
00:05:21
do about it?" That's fine. If you move
00:05:24
for 20 years to next five years, that's
00:05:26
a radically different discussion. And
00:05:29
just to be clear um roughly about the
00:05:32
science, you can help me with this
00:05:33
please, but my understanding is that
00:05:35
there are these huge ice shells on land
00:05:38
that move towards the sea and
00:05:40
particularly green land in Antarctica or
00:05:43
Antarctica. And that they're melting uh
00:05:47
first of all, maybe they shouldn't be
00:05:48
melting at all, but they're not only are
00:05:49
they melting, but they're melting at a
00:05:51
rapid pace. That's fresh water going
00:05:53
into the ocean. That changes the
00:05:55
salinity. It changes the hot and cold
00:05:57
levels of the ocean.
00:05:58
Oddly, it can cause the ocean
00:06:00
temperature to rise, but then somehow
00:06:03
warmer water can get stuck under the ice
00:06:05
in Antarctica, which actually causes it
00:06:07
to melt fast. It's very complicated, but
00:06:10
things are really melting even though
00:06:11
they make it it may seem like they're
00:06:13
getting colder at first. Yeah. Uh no, I
00:06:15
mean it's complicated and that's part of
00:06:17
the difficulty to communicate about it.
00:06:20
uh because very clear quickly people get
00:06:22
overwhelmed with the information and the
00:06:24
reason it's complicated is that you
00:06:26
talking about planet earth um multiple
00:06:29
interrelated systems uh air water soil
00:06:34
uh sun feedback loops feedback loops uh
00:06:37
but no you describe that pretty well
00:06:39
basically it's like you take a piece of
00:06:41
ice and you put it in your glass of
00:06:44
water you let it melt nothing happened
00:06:46
your glass stay at the same level now if
00:06:49
you take that piece of ice and let it
00:06:51
melt on the plate, you see water. And
00:06:53
that's exactly what we're talking about
00:06:55
that that ice is actually above sea
00:06:57
level, which means that it's additional
00:06:59
water coming in. That's one aspect that
00:07:02
the sea level and Antarctica and
00:07:04
Greenland has by far the largest uh
00:07:07
resource for ice around the world. So
00:07:10
when the ice start melting, you have sea
00:07:12
level rise. That's one. Two, you have
00:07:14
less reverberation from the solar
00:07:17
system. So basically the planet Earth is
00:07:19
going to absorb much more heat than
00:07:22
before. Not as much ice reflecting the
00:07:24
exact the light and heat back out into
00:07:26
the atmosphere. So that's for the two
00:07:28
part. And then you starting to challenge
00:07:31
the oceanan systems in a way that we
00:07:34
don't know how they're going to react.
00:07:36
And I think that's the issue here. Uh,
00:07:39
and I think that's what they discussed
00:07:40
in the paper too, saying, "Well, we know
00:07:41
we don't know for sure, but it's totally
00:07:44
plausible that we'll have that um rapid
00:07:47
ice melting." That's what they're
00:07:49
referring to. So, we do want to see what
00:07:52
happens when when it becomes more
00:07:53
peer-reviewed or when more scientists
00:07:55
have a chance to look at the data. But
00:07:56
this does seem like a step change uh in
00:07:59
in prediction uh compared with what
00:08:02
we've seen in the past from top people.
00:08:04
And um is is there a way to sum up what
00:08:07
this study means or how important it is?
00:08:10
Sure. Well, I think it's fair to say
00:08:11
that other people have predicted that
00:08:13
before. They're not the first one or the
00:08:15
only one except that as time passes, we
00:08:18
have more information that's being
00:08:20
collected. The technology is more
00:08:22
advanced as well. So, we're in a better
00:08:24
position to actually validate certain
00:08:26
theories than we were maybe 10 or 15
00:08:28
years ago. And uh and planetars is
00:08:32
already changing. I mean, that's a big
00:08:33
thing. We don't have another 200 years
00:08:35
to see change. It's already happening as
00:08:38
we speak. So more drought. I mean look
00:08:41
at the situation in California. I mean
00:08:42
you can take anecdotes here and there.
00:08:44
When you take them all together and
00:08:46
start looking at the system, the planet
00:08:47
system, planet earth is already starting
00:08:50
to fight back. So um I the question for
00:08:52
businesses to me is twofold. One is what
00:08:54
does that mean for my current business
00:08:56
model like kind of risk management asset
00:08:59
protection. Two is uh on the value
00:09:02
creation side. If that is the world
00:09:05
we're going to live in in the next 20 or
00:09:07
30 years, what type of new products, new
00:09:10
services, uh new intellectual property
00:09:12
should we develop between now and then
00:09:15
to be leading in a world with much more
00:09:18
uh which higher sea level. Um so that's
00:09:21
that's an interesting
00:09:23
in the history of forecasting or
00:09:25
predictions of climate change. you point
00:09:28
out there's there's been many um the
00:09:31
IPCC has made many of their so-called
00:09:35
consensus predictions. How have they
00:09:37
fared in um over the last 10, 15, 20
00:09:42
years when they predict something? How
00:09:44
accurate has it turned out to be?
00:09:45
Because as you say, we have more
00:09:46
evidence, better technology for
00:09:48
collecting evidence today. No, that's a
00:09:50
great question and the answer is um not
00:09:52
the one that as scientists would like to
00:09:54
see but the reality is if you go back at
00:09:57
the very beginning of the IPCC and you
00:10:00
look at the prediction back then u what
00:10:03
year might that be uh 15 years ago say
00:10:05
and you look at what they predicted for
00:10:07
2020. Mhm. Uh in terms of greenhouse gas
00:10:11
emission, in terms of impact on the
00:10:12
planet, uh the worst case scenarios are
00:10:15
already happening. And I think that's
00:10:17
important for people to realize that we
00:10:19
have more data. But we thought I think
00:10:21
it's fair to say we the international
00:10:23
community thought we had more time. It
00:10:25
will take much longer for planet earth
00:10:27
to react.
00:10:29
And what we're discovering year after
00:10:31
year is that we don't have much time.
00:10:33
Actually, uh, planeters are starting to
00:10:35
react much quicker than we had thought
00:10:38
it would. And that new paper should
00:10:40
potentially, uh, not only much quicker,
00:10:42
but much more intensely as well.
00:10:51
[Music]
