Climate Change

The wake up call

It’s time we understood that the IPCC's report could be an underestimate of the kind of dangers that await a warmed world and stopped questioning the science of climate change

 
By Sunita Narain
Last Updated: Monday 15 October 2018

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consists of scientists who can by no stretch of the imagination be called radical or activists. These are conventional scientists working in conventional research institutions—mostly from the rich world. When they issue an urgent warning about the dire and catastrophic impacts of climate change if the global temperatures exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels, then we must take it very seriously.

Also because, what IPCC says in its just released report on 1.5°C is probably an underestimate of the kind of dangers that await a warmed world—many scientists say the report has not taken into account the spiral of events, called tipping point, which will be unleashed as temperatures rise. The news is not good. It’s time we understood this and stopped questioning the science of climate change.

IPCC has revised its previous findings; it now says the impacts of global warming will be greater than what was previously anticipated at a temperature rise of 1.5°C. It should not surprise us. The world—particularly the poor world—is already seeing devastating impacts when the temperature increase is 1.2°C. Climate change is in our face. We don’t need science to tell us anymore that it will happen. What IPCC tells us is that the situation will get much worse, and that we must not allow the temperature to increase by 2°C.

The question then is only one: What can and must the world do to keep the temperature rise to below 1.5°C? IPCC estimates that to stay below this temperature guardrail, the world has to cut net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 45 per cent over the 2010 levels by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050.

Let’s unpack this statement. Roughly half of the CO2 emissions generated through activities of humans need to be cut by 2030. But as these are “net” emissions, it means that the world can emit more but the emissions must be “removed” to achieve the targets. The “removal” of emissions happens through “natural sinks”—oceans, for instance, absorb emissions and are part of the world’s natural cleansing systems. Then forests are important “sinks”—they sequester carbon. But the report is also pointing towards technology-induced removal through carbon capture and storage (CCS), where emissions of CO2 are harvested and then pushed back to store deep under the earth’s surface.

Remember, this is when the world remains intensely unequal in its consumption of energy and so does its emissions. The challenge is to reduce and yet, at the same time, increase the use of energy by the poorest in the world. According to IPCC, the remaining global CO2 budget—how much can be emitted for the world to stay below 1.5°C—is somewhere between 420 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtCO2 ) to 580 GtCO2 . At the current rate of emissions, this budget will be exhausted by 2030.

Remember also that the bulk of the carbon budget has already been appropriated by the already-rich countries. By 2030, when the budget is over and if the world wants to stay below 1.5°C, then it must be in negative emissions. That is, it must emit less than what the world’s sinks can clean up. What will then happen to the developing world? Now that the cake is all eaten, even the crumbs have been gobbled up, what happens to the development needs of millions who do not have access to energy and the millions who still need growth.

Does this mean the world stops talking about equity in climate change? This is what the US has wanted for long. Its current President Donald Trump has taken it to the extreme—countries like India who want the right to development are the problem, he says. The US must be allowed to pollute more because it is its birthright. All this said as crudely as only he can.

There is no doubt that equity is now passé in many ways. Countries like India, as is reiterated in the IPCC 1.5°C report, will be the worst impacted by climate change. This is not the time to gripe about who has created the problem and who must solve it. That time is gone. Also, there is no point in crying over spilt milk—the carbon budget is gone. Countries have emitted and filled up the available space. Now what is this talk of “equity”? What does it mean?

The fact is we have to operationalise “equity” in this changed scenario. This requires all countries, including India, to act. But it also requires much deeper cuts from the already developed world and financial and technology support to the energy poor to increase their emissions, if possible, differently and with lower carbon emissions. This is not the time to point fingers at the victims of climate change—at countries like India for needing space to develop. This calls for enormous sagacity and leadership so that the world can jointly and collaboratively find ways of reducing emissions and providing growth. Dismissing the need for climate justice will not get us anywhere.

Let’s discuss what can be done. IPCC looks at the rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure— including transport and building sectors. These are big contributors to emissions.

So, what will it take to build a more secure future? Firstly, it means that renewable energy must supply 70-85 per cent of the global electricity by 2050. Currently renewables supply some 20 per cent of the electricity, with the bulk coming from hydropower plants. So, the challenge is enormous. How will this transition happen? The share of natural gas can be roughly 8 per cent in this mix, but even this must include CCS. Coal use must be close to zero per cent by 2050. This is a huge ambition—the world is still addicted to coal for producing electricity, in the rich as well as the poor parts. The developing world needs to provide affordable energy to large numbers of its people. How can it replace coal and yet provide this energy security? How? This is the question. But it is equally a question, how the rich world will completely de-carbonise its electricity? And all this in the times of Trump.

The challenge is ambition and equity in action. Drastic emission reduction keeping in mind the need for climate justice. Let’s keep our sights on this. Act. Act now. The time for prevarication and procrastination is over.

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

India Environment Portal Resources :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • I agree with everything written here. I had an experience trying to scope technology to mitigate GHGs in agriculture, on which you might like to organise and agitate should the finding be general. For the transformations you , I and vast numbers of people wish to see happen planners, politicians, bureaucrats, and even -in this capitalist world - business, bankers, Insurers, trades unions all need access to a user-friendly portal in the world's main languages which provides - first for the most polluting sectors - and then for all sectors - the frontier technologies in terms of CO2 emissions , energy, water, full costings, direct and indirect employment, patent protections and their prices, sources of finance. At present information on the technology needed is in complete, fragmented, unsystematic. You know as well as I why that is. You cannot make decisions based on full knowledge or examine s trade-offs between environment, economic and social attributes of technology and their consequences i or the sequencing of the process of transformation n these conditions. This is something the UN should do as a matter of urgency. You know as well as I why this hasn't yet happened. The obstacles to down to earth common sense need integrating and addressing politically as well.

    Posted by: BARBARA HARRISS-WHITE | one month ago | Reply
  • The Wake Up Call message is indeed very scaring, more so with the advent of the current leadership in the US that want unlimited emission of carbondioxide into the atmosphere. However, nature has its own 'downs' that can also be exploited to the benefit of mankind. As the water resources become limited and the sunshine hours and intensity increases, investment in more affordable technology to harness the sun's rays through development of appropriate solar energy systems should be should can be given a priority. For example, African Sahel region and other areas such the Negen desert, and similar places, are 'blessed' with plenty of sunshine that if harnessed, can generate MW of carbon dioxide free energy for use. The other aspect to be given increased focus is wind energy.

    As rightly pointed out, this is not the time for pointing fingers, but for concerted efforts and consensus building approach to this matter of carbon emission, because global warming and its effects know no political boundaries. I submit.

    Posted by: Kaviiri Phenny H. D | one month ago | Reply