« Fortune on Enron   |   Main   |   More on climate theory »

Strategy, scenario planning applied to global warming

David Stipp writes in Fortune that the Department of Defense is applying scenario planning to brainstorm responses to a horrific possibility, an extreme drop in climate that would kick off a mini-ice age. The gist is that global warming has begin to impact oceanic currents that flow up from warmer climes and help moderate the temperature in northern areas such as Great Britain. Without those currents, colder weather would move to dominate what are now temperate zones, leading to great costs in fuel and reduced food production. The DOD brought in famed expert in scenario planning, Peter Schwartz, whose work for Royal Dutch/Shell in the 1970s saw them ready with responses to the oil shocks of that decade.
This is a snapshot of what they are outlooking, perhaps as soon as 2020:

Violent storms are increasingly common as the conveyor becomes wobbly on its way to collapse. A particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands, making coastal cities such as the Hague unlivable. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento River area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.
Megadroughts afflict the U.S., especially in the southern states, along with winds that are 15% stronger on average than they are now, causing widespread dust storms and soil loss. The U.S. is better positioned to cope than most nations, however, thanks to its diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources. That has a downside, though: It magnifies the haves-vs.-have-nots gap and fosters bellicose finger-pointing at America.
Turning inward, the U.S. effectively seeks to build a fortress around itself to preserve resources. Borders are strengthened to hold back starving immigrants from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean islands—waves of boat people pose especially grim problems. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rises as the U.S. reneges on a 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River into Mexico. America is forced to meet its rising energy demand with options that are costly both economically and politically, including nuclear power and onerous Middle Eastern contracts. Yet it survives without catastrophic losses.

This is interesting from several angles, not the least it’s potential to impact business and economic conditions worldwide. A situation as drastic as this certainly calls for divergent thinking. While this may be either (or both) far off or far-fetched, it provides a worthy platform for speculative analysis.
I do wonder that their conclusions for the continental US were so upbeat….. Without having access to their data, it’s hard to say. One factor they don’t mention directly is how they anticipate coping with the US’s reliance on oil imports for power and heating. Such conditions would surely devastate international trade, and our technological edge might be of little use if the lights are out. Given the simultaneous greying of our population as the baby boomers age, I would be more worried about our capacity to feed and care for ourselves absent the amenities we are used to enjoying.

Source: Fortune.com - The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare