Global warming: four ways to manage the dangerous moment of exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius
[ad_1]
We may soon be forced to move beyond a non-interventionist, conservation paradigm. Whether its recommendations are accepted or not, the work of the Climate Overshoot Commission shows how the international community is failing to prevent dangerous climate change. The consequences of this failure will dominate public policy for decades to come. This new report takes us one step further.
For three decades the goal of international climate talks has been to avoid dangerous warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius. With temperatures hovering around 1.2 degrees Celsius so far, we have not reached the zone we have declared dangerous and pledged to avoid. But recent scientific assessments suggest that we are on the verge of passing that milestone. Within this decade, global annual temperatures are likely to be 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial average for at least one year. This limit was already exceeded briefly in the month of July 2023 during the northern summer.
The question is how do we manage this period of overshoot and bring temperatures back down? The goal will be to restore a better habitable climate as quickly as possible. Today an independent group of global leaders released a major report. The Climate Overshoot Commission provides guidance at this critical time. So far the report’s call for an immediate halt to solar radiation management (deflecting the sun’s rays to reduce warming) has attracted the most attention. But the details of other recommendations deserve closer inspection.
How can we respond to climate change? Historically, climate policies have focused on mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Recently, customization has gained prominence. But the Climate Overshoot report identifies at least four different types of responses if temperatures rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius: Cut emissions to reduce warming Adapt to a changing climate Seize carbon already in the atmosphere or ocean Eliminate interference to limit warming by deliberately reflecting a fraction of sunlight into space.
The Commission’s task was to examine how all possible responses could best be combined. Their report was written by 12 global leaders – including the former presidents of Niger, Kiribati and Mexico – who worked with a youth panel and a team of scientific advisers. A four-step plan to curb warming Not surprisingly, the Commission argues that our central task is mitigation. Moving away from fossil fuels remains the first priority. But reaching net zero emissions is only the first step. The Commission argues that developed countries such as Australia should go further and aim for net-negative emissions.
Why net-negative? In the short term, reducing carbon could make room for the least industrialized countries to fight poverty while transitioning to clean energy. In the long term, the entire global economy must achieve net-negative emissions if the planet is to return to our current safe climate zone. The second step is optimization. Today we have no option but to adapt to the changing circumstances. However, adaptation is costly – whether it is developing new crop varieties or rebuilding coastal infrastructure.
Since the poorest communities that are most vulnerable to climate harm have the lowest capacity to adapt, the Commission recommends international assistance for locally controlled, context-specific strategies. As a third step, the Commission agrees with the scientific assessment that carbon dioxide will need to be removed from the air on a significant scale and safely stored if we are to avoid permanent overshoot beyond 1.5°C warming. But how to achieve large-scale, sustainable carbon removal? Some environmental activists support natural solutions such as planting trees but oppose industrial methods that seek to store carbon in inorganic forms such as carbon capture and underground storage.
The Commission agrees that the organic/inorganic distinction is important. However, this indicates that while forests bring many benefits, carbon stored in ecosystems is often re-released – for example, in wildfires. The Commission is concerned that many approaches to carbon removal are false, unsustainable or have adverse social and environmental impacts. However, rather than rejecting technologies on ideological grounds, it recommends research and regulation to ensure that only socially beneficial and high-integrity forms of carbon removal are scaled up. The fourth phase – solar radiation management – refers to technologies that aim to reduce climate harm caused by reflecting some of the Sun’s energy into space.
Nobody likes the idea of solar radiation management. Our responses do not provide any firm guidance about whether an intervention is worth considering. Should we trust our guts on this one? While climate models suggest that solar radiation management could reduce climate loss, we do not yet well understand the associated risks. The Commission considers this matter carefully. On the one hand, it recommends an immediate halt to the deployment of solar radiation modification and large-scale outdoor experiments and rejects the idea that deployment is now inevitable. On the other hand, it recommends increased support for international dialogue on research, governance and periodic global scientific reviews.
Time to investigate interference in the climate system? The idea that we can avoid dangerous warming altogether seems increasingly outlandish. Like baggy jeans, boy band NSYNC and the iPod shuffle, it reminds us of a more innocent era. Yet, Australia’s climate debate often seems stuck in this era. The widespread hope that we still have time means that we are not yet discussing more interventionist responses to the climate crisis.
However, there is growing reason to be skeptical that incremental measures will suffice. We may soon be forced to move beyond a non-interventionist, conservation paradigm. Whether its recommendations are accepted or not, the work of the Climate Overshoot Commission shows how the international community is failing to prevent dangerous climate change. The consequences of this failure will dominate public policy for decades to come. This new report takes us one step further.
Disclaimer: IndiaTheNews has not edited this news. This news has been published from PTI-language feed.
[ad_2]
Source link
