Climate Change and Change

The IPCC 2018 special report on 1.5°C comes at the request of a number of vulnerable nations made at the time the 2015 Paris Agreement was reached. The report compared the effects of warming at 1.5°C with 2°C. The report interpreted the existing body of scientific literature (6000 studies reviewed by 91 experts from 40 countries) using a consensus-based approach and so this means it adopts a fairly conservative bias to describe the impacts of climate change. The conclusion is that preventing an extra single degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference in the next few decades for multitudes of people and ecosystems on this fast-warming planet. These world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

“For some people this is a life-or-death situation without a doubt,” said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, a lead author on the report.

1.5C versus 2C of global warming

• Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5C, and increase further with 2C.
• Those at disproportionately higher risk of the adverse consequences of global warming at 1.5C and beyond include disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, some indigenous peoples and local communities that make a living from agriculture or coastal activities like fishing.
• Regions that are particularly threatened include Arctic ecosystems, dry regions, small-island developing states and least-developed countries.
• Any increase in global warming is expected to affect human health, largely negatively. The risk of heat-related deaths is lower at 1.5C than at 2C, while risks from some insect-carried diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, are likely to rise with the temperature.
• Limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could reduce the proportion of the world population exposed to increasing water stress by up to half, although this varies considerably between regions.
• Sticking to the 1.5C target would keep global sea level rise 0.1 metre (3.9 inches) lower by 2100 than warming of 2C. That suggests up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on 2010 population levels and if no adaptation occurs.
• If sea levels rise more slowly, there will be greater opportunities for small islands, low-lying coastal areas and deltas to adjust to coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and damage to infrastructure, among other risks.
• Countries in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere subtropics are projected to see the largest negative impacts on economic growth due to climate change if warming rises from 1.5C to 2C.
• Extreme hot days in the planet's mid-latitude temperate regions would be hotter by up to about 3C at global warming of 1.5C, and 4C at 2C of warming. Overall, the number of hot days is projected to increase in most regions, especially in the tropics.
• Risks from droughts and rainfall shortages are likely to be higher in some regions at 2C of global warming compared to 1.5C.
• Heavy rainfall associated with tropical cyclones is projected to be higher at 2C compared to 1.5C of global warming. Globally, heavy precipitation is likely to be higher at 2C of warming and, as a consequence, the fraction of the world's land affected by floods is also projected to be larger.
• Holding warming to 1.5C is projected to result in lower net declines in yields of maize, rice, wheat and potentially other cereal crops, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America.
• Less food is likely to be available at 2C of warming than at 1.5C in the Sahel, southern Africa, the Mediterranean, central Europe and the Amazon. Livestock are also expected to be adversely affected as temperatures rise

• Curbing warming to 1.5C rather than 2C would be less damaging for global efforts to develop in a sustainable way, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality.

Much of the planet and its people, today and in the future, are going to experience significant climate impacts—including worsening drought, water scarcity, flooding, heat waves and wildfires—even if we succeed in reducing emissions. The task ahead for the world's survival is clear: cut emissions as much as possible  Future generations depend on the choices we will make today. The scientific consensus is that we cannot afford to delay action for very much longer.  Current emissions reduction pledges are not enough to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. The only way out of runaway global warming is for nations of the world to come together to tackle the climate crisis. We already have the technical know-how to limit emissions such as low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar energy. and expanding carbon-friendly re-forestation and management of land use practices. We’ll possess the technologies and processes to decrease reliance of fossil fuels in the transportation and industrial sectors. We can also development and deploy next generation solutions, battery storage, carbon capture and sequestration, safe nuclear power, off-the grid electricity generation to increase energy access for the millions of people in the world who still don’t have access to modern energy services. The choices we make now daunting and  they may come with adverse unintended consequences.

 Earth’s weather, health and ecosystems would be in better shape if we could somehow limit future human-caused warming to just 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (a half degree Celsius) from now, instead of the globally agreed-upon goal of 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C). Among other things:

• Half as many people would suffer from lack of water.
• There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases.
• Seas would rise nearly 4 inches (0.1 meters) less.
• Half as many animals with backbones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats.
• There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts.
• The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting
• And it just may be enough to save most of the world’s coral reefs from dying.

Limiting warming to 0.9 degrees from now means the world can keep “a semblance” of the ecosystems we have.  The world has already warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times, so the talk is really about the difference of another half-degree C or 0.9 degrees F from now.

“Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate,” the report states.

The pledges nations made in the Paris agreement in 2015 are “clearly insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 in any way,” one of the study’s lead authors, Joerj Roeglj of the Imperial College in London, said.

“I just don’t see the possibility of doing the one and a half” and even 2 degrees looks unlikely, said Appalachian State University environmental scientist Gregg Marland, who isn’t part of the U.N. panel but has tracked global emissions for decades for the U.S. Energy Department.

For socialists, here is a problem which we can all agree must be tackled swiftly and decisively? What a hope!

 Governments are more concerned about the effects which determined action against carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases would have on the economy. For example, the coal and chemical industries would suffer badly. Despite all the talk about the need to do something about global warming, despite all the policy strategies, emissions targets and ingenious incentive schemes, governments have failed to constrain the extraction of dirty oil. If even this energy source, the most harmful of all, cannot be ruled off limits, then what can be the purpose of those strategies, targets and schemes? Presumably only to conceal the helpless complicity of governments in face of the blind and relentless drive of capital to expand.

What about the underdeveloped countries? They stand to lose most from global warming so aren't they keener to take action? Afraid not, because they insist that they must industrialise even more if they are to help their starving, homeless millions. 

We have never thought that achieving socialism will be easy, but compared to getting capitalism to outlaw global warming at the expense of profit and political power, it should be a push-over.