This blog post has taken some time to write. I have been hesitating, thinking a lot about from which viewpoint I should address the outcome of the climate negotiations in Pars. Being a dystopic optimist there are of course many ways to comment on both the outcome of COP 21 in Paris and if it really was a game changer for our future climate. Hope or despair, or maybe a bit of both.
For many who have been working with different aspects of global warming; as scientist, policymakers or activist, the looming shadow over Paris was of course the debacle in Copenhagen back in 2009. Therefore, the mere fact that there was a general agreement was something to be celebrated. And it sounded even better when the agreement stipulated that the aim was to keep global temperature increase “well below” 2°C. Also, the fact that we are seeing a remarkable growth in sustainable energy production from wind and solar indicates that the energy transition away from fossil fuels has begun. In part, this is driven by investors beginning to realise that coal and oil are no longer long term solid investments but may instead become stranded assets. That there is no viable future of fossil fuels on a living planet is something even the World Bank har realised and France has decided to stop new oil exploration.
Still, when the Paris euphoria was over, there was not so much to celebrate any more. In reality, the agreement while pointing to a good direction did not include any real solutions and no binding commitments or sanctions for those nations who do not comply with their promises. There is also a clear risk for complacency among politicians; boasting about having reached an agreement but not so willing to work through with actions necessary to change the way we run our societies and energy systems in a more profound way. In choosing between action or shielding themselves to win the next election most politicians will chicken out; sadly there are yet very few leaders in the political sphere.
This is also clear in the way the refugee crisis due to the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan has been handled. So far, in Sweden as well as other European countries the “solutions” have been focused on barriers and borders, in a pathetic belief that the problems will go away if refugees are kept outside our countries or the borders of Europe. For a short time we may hide behind our walls, fences and bridges, but then what? Nothing has changed on the ground that will stop people fleeing for their lives.
Last year, 2015 was by a wide margin the warmest year in human recorded history. 2016 has started out even hotter, with January being the hottest month in recorded human history.The warming is not equally distributed over the globe, it is especially hot in the Arctic.
Data from NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
This is having real impact on the Arctic Sea Ice. Todays graph of sea ice extent shows an ominous decline at a time when the ice cover should still be growing. How this will affect climate and weather in the coming year is yet unclear, but it is unlikely to have any good effects.
Arctic sea ice news http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The one thing we know is that it will get even warmer. We are already locked in for more warming, one reason being that the oceans have absorbed most of the extra heat so far. The global temperature increase so far has already had profound effects, despite “only" being 1°C over the pre-industrial baseline. The societal effects of global warming are already here and will increase with time. Climate change has been shown to be a contributor to the Syria crisis and further global warming will drive new refugees from their homes. If rising seawater inundates the Nile delta and causes the collapse of the Egypt breadbasket, what some today call a “flood” of refugees will be a trickle as compared to what will then happen; 60 million refugees worldwide may increase 10-fold or more as sea level rises.
The year 2100 is far beyond my lifespan, but if I will have grandchildren they are likely to be alive in 2100. What will the future look like then if we do not drastically change the course we are on? It is hard to grasp what will happen in 90 years time and it’s even harder to think about centuries to come. But time will not end by 2100. “Everyone is focused on what happens by 2100. But that’s only 2 generations from today. It’s like: If the world ends in 2100 we’re probably OK!”
Our actions now will determine the fate for millennia's to come. "Even with climate change limited to 2C by tough emissions cuts, sea level would rise by 25 metres over the next 2,000 years or so and remain there for at least 10,000 years - twice as long as human history". A look at this map shows some of the regions of the world that may become the future Atlantis.
Figure from http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html
So back to the start of this blog post, am I more pessimistic now after Paris? Yes and no. The reality is even more bleak than most people realise. But there are also more solutions and possibilities available - if we choose to act. It is not too late change direction. But the necessary solutions will hurt, life and society as we know it will change.
It is also a question of equity. We often discuss how the burden of carbon reduction should be distributed among nations. But wealth and responsibility for emissions is not equally shared neither between nor within nations. Rich individuals must foot the bill. The richest 1% of Americans, Luxembourgers, Singaporeans and Saudis emit more than 200 tonnes of CO2 per person per year; 2,000 times more than the poorest in Honduras, Rwanda or Malawi.
This discrepancy is also a possibility since 10% of the world population is responsible for about half of the global greenhouse gas emissions. It should be more realistic for richest tenth of the world to cut back on their carbon privileges than to press farmers in developing areas to abstain from the necessities needed to rise out of poverty. It should, but remember that many of us in Sweden belong to this group. Are we willing to cut back from shopping trips to London and yearly vacations in far away countries?
Looking back at 2015, there is one event that is probably more important than the Paris agreement and that was the adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals by the UN. These goals are valid for all countries and are necessary and valid goals, encompassing all aspects of human life and a sustainable planet.
But what is the likelihood of our world achieving the 17 goals by 2030 – at both a global and regional level? This is something the Norwegian based organisation DNV has attempted to analyse under the Spaceship Earth heading. It is clear from the figure below that many goals will, at least in parts be met - except inequality and climate change. The question that remains if we can solve ANY of the goals without addressing these two....
Figure in https://brandcentral.dnvgl.com/fileroot6/gallery/DNVGL/files/original/78832c87309143a7be08a7fcbbd78841.pdf
This coming week I look forward to the launch of SDSN-NE, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network Northern Europe. This network is based in Gothenburg and headed jointly by Chalmers and Gothenburg University. The aim is bold, as the figure below shows:
My hope is that the start of SDSN-NE will be an opportunity for our universities to show much more leadership and ASR, Academic Social Responsibility in the huge task that lies ahead of us to steer to world into a more resilient pathway and away from both short and long term calamities.
PS
Even a blog may have a PS if the news are good enough:) I just saw this graph on the development of sustainable energy in EU. Now a number of countries are already way ahead of their 2020 goals for renewable energy!
PS
Even a blog may have a PS if the news are good enough:) I just saw this graph on the development of sustainable energy in EU. Now a number of countries are already way ahead of their 2020 goals for renewable energy!
No comments:
Post a Comment