Global warming and Criticality & Design
Environmental Due Diligence
In the final episode of season 3 of our podcast, Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, Richard and I reflected on what appeared to be a common thread throughout the season which was criticality and design. With this context, we discussed climate change and environmental due diligence, and the example of global warming. This is a credible critical issue and if we take the due diligence design approach, you are basically asking what are the design options that can be put forward for this critical issue and which is/are reasonable in the circumstances.
Richard and I have used Melbourne as an example on a number of occasions and put the question forward:
Should the Victorian government (which has practicable options available and the resources to do so) protect Melbourne (a low-lying city) from rising sea levels?
Governance obligations require organisations and governments to make decisions regarding credible, critical risks, such as major flooding of a capital city from rising sea levels using the concept of due diligence.
The essential aspect of due diligence is that foreseeable harm to neighbours should be appropriately managed. Therefore, the first question is Can the concept of neighbour encompass future generations?
The High Court of Australia seems to think so and has noted [Deane J in Hawkins v Clayton (1988)]:
… a duty of care can be owed to a class of persons who are not yet born…
In 2004, the Victorian parliament passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Amongst other matters this requires all persons to eliminate hazards, so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP), and if this is not possible, to reduce risks so far as is reasonably practicable. The Act binds the Crown.
In 2018, the Victorian government passsed the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018, which commenced on 1 July 2020. The cornerstone of the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 is the General Environmental Duty (GED). The GED adopts the SFAIRP principle used in the OHS Act, that is: to eliminate risks of harm to human health and the environment so far as reasonably practicable; and if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks of harm to human health and the environment, to reduce those risks so far as reasonably practicable.
A breach of the GED could lead to criminal or civil penalties. This Act also binds the Crown.
Based on BoM and CSIRO studies it does seem that the planet is warming. Whether this is entirely due to human activity (greenhouse gas emissions) or natural forces is argued extensively. But there does seem to be general agreement that for the 6 billion people on planet Earth, more than a 2 degrees celsius increase is problematic. After that, no-one’s too sure what might come next.
A runaway temperature change that melts the 3km deep Greenland ice sheet, for example, will result in a 7m increase in sea levels, with incredible consequences for the residents of (relatively) low lying seaboard cities like Melbourne. This certainly seems a plausible, critical scenario and one that Australian governments should be seen to consider carefully.
Due diligence is all about what can be done (options analysis) rather than endlessly arguing over the detail of the actual degree of risk, particularly for high consequence, low likelihood events. Due diligence is output, not input, focused.
An internet search reveals that the number of options being discussed to address such an issue is quite numerous. These includec ontrolling carbon emissions, which has proved politically difficult and, if the planet is naturally warming, quite ineffective. The Krakatoa explosion of 1883 seems to have cooled the planet by about 1.2 degrees Celsius for a year as a result of the increased albedo effect (reflecting sunlight back into space). But we don’t yet seem to be able to predict such events in advance, so cooling the planet by that means would seem to be more a matter of good luck than good governance.
However, there are a number of other, apparently viable precautions of differing costs and effectiveness.
These include pumping moisture into the air (more white reflective clouds) that would achieve a similar effect to a Krakatoa 1883 explosion.
Sun shields at the La Grangian L1 point between the Earth and the sun would be effective too.
Possibly the cheapest option seems to be the fertilisation of the Southern Ocean to create carbon absorbing algal blooms which may cool the planet and also act as a carbon sink thereby de-acidifing the oceans. Such precautions can be summarised in a threat-barrier diagram (TBD), like that shown below.
Global warming threat-barrier diagram
From a due diligence perspective, the question is: Are any of these reasonable in the circumstances?
This is decided on the balance of the significance of the risk verses the effort required to reduce it. From Justice Sir Anthony Mason of the High Court of Australia in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980):
The perception of a reasonable man’s response calls for a consideration of the magnitude of the risk and the degree of probability of its occurrence, along with the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking alleviating action and any other conflicting responsibilities which the defendant may have.
According to the Victorian Government department that is responsible for water (there have been a number of name changes over the years), the Victorian desalination plant has presently cost the Victorian taxpayer around $5.7 billion (without the purchase of any water). The reason for the need for the plant seems to be based on a due diligence argument. At the time of the decision, much of Victoria had experienced a 10 year drought. If this drought had continued for another 10 years, the possibility of Melbourne running out of water was deemed quite plausible.
As the state cabinet had within its power to ensure that this could not happen, then whatever was needed was done, even if it is more likely than not that it will never be needed.
$5.7 billion is a lot of money. Some of the ideas mentioned to address global warming apparently might be implemented for such a sum.
If so, it would appear to be within the power of the Victorian parliament to prevent a plausible catastrophic flooding of Melbourne due to run-away global warming.
In conclusion, provided the science and numbers are right (this would be very prudent to verify and validate), a perpetuation of the due diligence approach enshrined in Victorian OHS and environmental legislation would seem to require the Victorian parliament to investigate and potentially act to protect the residents (present and future) of Melbourne - and incidentally cool the entire planet.