So to help drive down these emissions what do you think we can do? It is a glorious sunny day but tomorrow might bring the storms of climate change and this is the warning we were looking for.
Money Talks?
According to the IPCC report the changes would be affordable. It would only cost the global economy 0.06% to implement off the global annual growth rates of 1.3 - 3%. Perhaps too far for governments at this time.
Oxfam's climate expert Jan Kowalzig said: "This report puts the fossil fuel companies and their financiers on notice: the era of fossil fuel energy is ending.”
So what next Jan?
Increase a reliance on renewable resources?
The answer to all our problems which is often advocated by the greens on our political plate. Yet the government steak (stake) in the plan has largely been reduced since their devotion to the Green Bank. With 16% agreeing that the Conservatives have completed their goals regarding being the 'greenest government ever', against 46% who disagree, it looks like the party has not become the environment best friend yet.
The appointment of Owen Paterson, a climate-change sceptic, as environment secretary compounds this issue. Paterson said in September 2013: 'People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.'
Thanks for that Owen!
Dr Stephan Singer, WWF director of global energy policy, states that: "Renewable energy can no longer be considered a niche market. Renewables must – and should – eventually take the full share of the global energy market within the next few decades."
Have a browse around the Natural Resources Defense Council (typical to make it sound like a war) for some work on renewable resources. Interesting analysis of America.
 |
| The IPCC is seen the leading voice on Climate Change but needs to consider recent research |
What else?
Well we could always resort to pumping CO2 underground? Read the article here.
Summary
If you want more of an overview then I suggest checking out the report. This is not my area of specialism but has always interested me. Would love the views of all to help develop this discussion. It is obvious that we need to do something but what is still the question we are asking!
Politically being a green government wont get you elected next time, it tends to be quite expensive and wont have a direct or immediate impact. Similarly politicians seem unable to come to global agreement on cutting emissions, and this doesn't look to change - there is currently a flux whereby few nations have a realistic binding agreement. Unfortunately, the longer the world delays offsetting emissions, the more it will cost.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of solutions, in my opinion geoengineering is the best (and likely only) option. Sadly it has a number of drawbacks. Politically it is dangerous - it has different effects in different areas (for example rainfall over China may decrease, but increase in Central Asia - the knock on effects on agriculture>economics>political). Who would control and implement it? (See governments not being able to agree). Morally, tampering with supposedly 'natural' climate may offend certain (mainly religious) groups. No one has told them that it has been happening since the industrial revolution. Scientifically research is only beginning in this area due to the above problems, more research is needed on the different effects and even then it will all be probabilities as with anything in science. Fortunately people are starting to wake up, for example intelligence officials have visited Exeter Uni to talk to the lecturers about this 'new' geo-engineering who were apparently most concerned when they discovered what it is (implementation would require military technologies, it could be used in warfare as well). Unfortunately these are all limiting factors, in the long run the world may be forced to use geo-engineering to offset climate change, but then a reliance could develop rather than resolving the root problem. Nonetheless, properly managed it is certainly the best option from my view.
To reiterate what Charles said above, the 2007 IPCC concluded that there will be twice as much warming over the next two decades now than if we had stabilised heat trapping gases at their year 2000 levels. This statistic has further increased with the release of the 2014 IPCC report - showing that doing nothing, whilst being an easy option for current governments, will ultimately cost our economy significantly more than if we acted now to cut out emissions. Politicians need to become less concerned with individual costs and strategies and more concerned with the bigger picture - that something needs to be done NOW. Delaying offsetting emissions is expensive in more ways than one and tackling emissions should be a key policy point regardless of which political party is in power.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore geo-engineering needs to be considered not as a potential option but something that will become imminently necessary whether we like it or not, and though more research into potential outcomes and responses is of course incredibly important, a focus on governance and control of geoengineering resources and techniques is something that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Thank you both for your comments. Whilst I cannot begin to engage in the specific details of the plans you have outlined I will draw on some of your points.
ReplyDeleteCharlie: Very important point concerning the issue of governments not being able to agree on a fair international climate change agenda. The issue for China, India, Nigeria, and other new growing economies is that they will highlight the West's industrial revolution. Why should they deal with it? Why should they pay more? 'The West has had their revolution and now it is time for ours' they will undoubtedly cry.
Yet, though an international solution looks doubtful, despite most signing the IPCC report, the issue of China's smog is deemed as critical by the current government. They know the issues that environmental degradation can cause in their own state and are determined to resolve it. However, it would be interesting to see whether China's reforms will be implemented in their foreign assets?
The security complex of the environment is a growing discourse, wars over water have been referenced as issues for the future.
Ellie: Doing something would be brilliant, in fact this video really draws out this argument in a pretty easy way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ (Skip to 1:30 to avoid some crazy ranting).
Your point about action NOW needs further consideration though.
Politicians are influenced by those below (the electorate), the direct (businesses), and above (international organisations).
Well the above is clearly supporting the action (the IPCC is spelling it out); however the electorate and businesses are the ones we need to convince.
The electorate (us) needs to demonstrate that we want action and I do not feel that enough of us are prepared to say 'Yes we will sacrifice some economic growth for a reduction in climate change'. Partly for personal economic reasons and predominately because we do not think that other states will get involved to the same degree. A typical economic freerider problem pertains.
The business environment is a mixed issues - will it benefit them? Do they care? This is an issue that is harder to fix. Can we restrict businesses by bycotting their business until they give in? Probably! But, not in this economic climate.
The question you ask though, will this all be too late? I'm afraid so. Nonetheless, Gandhi said 'You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty'. If we can become an ocean of change then I think there is a chance to reverse this.
I hope the IPCC report stirs a wider reaction to the problem but for now we must wait, see, and act.
I agree with everything you have said - however in response to the point about politicians and who influences them, if every political party was to implement climate change mitigation and emission reduction in their policies in a universal manner, then the electorate would be able to distinguish no difference between political parties on that particular issue and therefore it shouldn't effect their decisions in any election? Given no choice but emission reduction, they can't choose the alternative!Theoretically anyway (I know very little about politics).
ReplyDeleteIn a way that has happened but each party has had a different conception on the environment. I hate to copy and paste but from the article I mentioned that 'The appointment of Owen Paterson, a climate-change sceptic, as environment secretary compounds this issue. Paterson said in September 2013: 'People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.' This rather limits the promises made by the Conservatives on the Green Bank. Indeed they have done rather little on their policies. It is not just about having the policies but making sure they are accountable and action them!
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we are still beset by some nutters who believe climate change is not happening/important and they are a large group to tap in to for politicians