Dave Olsen
Now, this report is highly controversial, for several reasons. Many question the feasibility of keeping warming under 1.5 degrees for the century, and the methods that the IPCC is likely to suggest are unpopular. On top of that is the element of politics: researchers from oil-rich regions are likely to defend fossil fuels and declare that we are past the point of no return, while scientists from resource-poor nations will declare that we can reach the 1.5 degrees mark.
But the IPCC is certainly credible. It uses all of the available literature to make reports, and sends drafts out to government and scientists for comment. All of this is taken on board, and a broad consensus is reached. So, if this report does find that keeping temperature rises under 1.5 degrees is possible this century, we should believe it. Governments can’t really avoid that.
Researchers believe that we are on track for 1.5 degrees by 2040. As such, the 2050 zero emissions targets seem useless now. Therefore, the report is expected to say that the pace must be quickened, and that we should actively take CO2 from the air with carbon capture technologies.
Therefore, the eventual effect of the IPCC’s report will rest on three crucial details: how credible it is, the reasons for more change, and what solutions are offered. Get these right, and there will be all the right ingredients to create a real sense of crisis. That, surely, could spark quicker, bigger, and more radical action.
Credibility is perhaps the most important. If Trump, in particular, can pick holes in the report and the institution, and claim that it has been doctored to fit the needs of the US’ enemies, then he will. That would be the final nail in the coffin of the many island nations around the world that feel existentially threatened.
However, if the report is careful, conservative, and cautious, then Trump may struggle to ignore it. Its presence in politics will grow larger and larger, until it simply cannot be left to one side. He will have to deal with it, sooner or later.
Why the report finds reason for more rapid change will also be pivotal to whether or not it can spark change. If it finds that, without straying outside the bounds of credibility, we are likely to exceed 1.5 degrees and need to act to change that, then perhaps that will be enough for politicians.
Remember, politicians want votes, and they will be very keen to jump on something like this to prove that they are proactive and care about problems threatening people. If this report finds that climate change is a looming threat, will short-term effects, then it is likely to have this effect on politics.
What the report suggests as solutions to the problem will be less important in the sense that it won’t create a climate ripe for change, but it could be significant in determining whether or not governments actually take the action to fit the rhetoric.
Should it outline an affordable, economically-beneficial, and feasible plan, then that should seal the deal. This means that it should perhaps hold off on proposing the use of carbon capture technology, as it is embryonic (and so infeasible) and rather expensive. It would also create minimal economic benefit and few jobs, so it would fail (currently) on all three counts.
Instead, the report should suggest, as is expected, quicker cuts to emissions and more renewable energy investment, as well as the propagation of different diets and lifestyles. After this base is established, it could bring up the idea of carbon capture as a future possibility, alongside other proposals that could be assessed in the future.
This would help to create a situation in which governments feel it is beneficial to take action, it is a credible insight, and that there is an appropriate plan of action that can be almost directly implemented.
That isn’t likely, and the report will go through the wars for a while before we know the effect that it has had. It is, however, a possibility, and one hopes that the researchers and diplomats will have the calmness and pragmatism required to read and attend to the situation through tough times — with a combative behind-closed-doors debate on the horizon.
If so (last hypothetical, I promise), then we can expect action to begin rather soon: real, lasting steps to secure the future of our planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment