Our climate and energy dilemma: The case for emergency action
To avoid catastrophic outcomes for our climate, we must take action now to halt new fossil-fuel investment. Ian Dunlop says for a sustainable future we have no choice but to make the transition to low-carbon technologies work.
In the lead-up to the Paris Climate Change negotiations last December, much new scientific material was published, ranging from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report to major reviews by various Academies of Science, the military, as well as multiple scientific papers.
The IPCC Report is very important and the basis for much global policy, but it is an inherently conservative document. In particular, it mentions, but does not quantify, the “tipping point” risks of the climate system. Scientists have long been concerned about these non-linear feedback mechanisms which may trigger rapid, irreversible and catastrophic change.
New evidence suggests this may now be happening in the Arctic, Antarctic and elsewhere, not least in the destruction of our Great Barrier Reef. One result may be a sea-level rise of several metres this century. The social disruption and economic consequences would be devastating, leading to extensive forced migration and economic collapse, potentially making the planet ungovernable and threatening the fabric of civilization. The refugee crisis now engulfing Europe is fundamentally climate change driven and a precursor of greater conflict ahead in the absence of rapid carbon emission reduction.
With current global policies, average global surface temperature increase is likely to exceed 4oC, relative to pre-industrial levels, before 2100, implying a substantial reduction in global population as parts of the world become uninhabitable.
To have a realistic chance of staying below even 2oC, there is no carbon budget left today; no further carbon should be emitted to atmosphere. Obviously that is not going to happen, but it means that every tonne of carbon emitted henceforth must eventually be drawn down from atmosphere, using technologies which at present are non-existent.
The most dangerous aspect is that, due to inertia of the climate system, the climate impact of investments made today do not manifest themselves for decades to come. Thus waiting for catastrophe to happen, which is the implication of current inaction, means it will be too late to act, an outcome sensible risk management is designed to avoid. These are risks unlike any humanity has had to face historically, requiring fundamentally different risk management techniques.
The Paris Agreement, whilst a diplomatic coup, in practical terms is a disaster. Given current evidence, waiting until 2020 to implement an Agreement which is patently inadequate to meet even the established 20C maximum temperature increase limit, let alone a far more onerous 1.50C aspiration, and then waiting a further three years before reviewing its commitments, is simply suicidal.
Obviously it is progress to have unanimous agreement from global leaders on a common document, and to have generated a great deal of corporate rhetoric about the need to meet the 2oC objective, but the chasm between rhetoric and scientific reality has to be bridged rapidly.
If we wish to avoid catastrophic outcomes we must take emergency action now to halt new fossil-fuel investment and rapidly wean ourselves off established fossil-fuel use. We have solutions, but thus far have lacked the will to implement them.
There is much argument about the ability or otherwise of low-carbon technologies such as wind, solar and the latest nuclear technologies to replace fossil fuels. The point being missed in this debate is that climate science tells us now that we have no choice; we have to make these substitutions work, and fast, otherwise we do not have a sustainable future. On the other hand, this transition represents our greatest opportunity to restructure society on a genuinely sustainable basis.
Ian Dunlop will be speaking on this topic at UTS on Tuesday evening 2nd August.
Ian Dunlop is a senior Advisory Board member of the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration. He was formerly an energy industry executive and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He co-wrote “What Lies Beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk”.
Max Thomas
August 2, 2016 at 1:59 am
A quick fix in the mix
Economic growth became an obsession in the post-WW2 era. Living standards improved dramatically and the 'market' would regulate the economy and solve the problems of the capitalist world. Economic planning and technology would bring prosperity to the communist economies. "Technological Optimism" was dominant; there was nothing that could not be achieved by the application of human ingenuity. The environmental impacts of economic growth were largely ignored. The connection between the environment and human health and wellbeing are now widely appreciated. However, a number of events causing tragic consequences for health and ecosystems brought the prevailing unlimited growth paradigm into question. "Limits to Growth" was commissioned by The Club of Rome and published in 1972. We do need to take urgent action and that must include technology. However, I am astonished that "The Case for Emergency Action" as advanced here does not include an argument for reducing the profligate waste of energy that we see everywhere. Significant emission reductions are achievable quickly at low cost if we learn to live a little more, dare I say, sustainably. As I've noted in another blog, the poorer half of the world's population could move to another planet and it would make little difference to carbon emissions. "Carbon emitted henceforth must eventually be drawn down from atmosphere, using technologies which at present are non-existent." "We have to make these substitutions [solar, wind, nuclear] work, and fast, otherwise we do not have a sustainable future." This reads a lot like 'technical optimism' to me.
Ian Dunlop
August 3, 2016 at 4:23 am
The Bigger Picture
Max. You are quite right that the solutions require much more than just technical optimism – there was limit to how much I could include in 600 words! Energy efficiency and conservation by changing lifestyles are probably more critical than supply technologies and involve fundamental change to social attitudes to make the technical advances effective. But the challenge is far greater than the incumbency is prepared to acknowledge and will inevitably lead to a rethink of our economic and social frameworks in the broadest sense if we are to have any chance avoiding societal collapse. You are also right that the vast bulk of the emissions problem globally is excessive consumption of fossil fuels and agricultural activity in the developed world, as scientist John Schellnhuber clearly pointed out at the launch of the Pope's encyclical last year. It is the developed world which has to constrain its emissions, but the developing world must leapfrog fossil fuels by taking low-carbon pathways otherwise the emission problem only grows. We certainly do not need Adani coal mines in Queensland which, contrary to the views of our political masters, will create rather than alleviate poverty. Fortunately a broader rethink seems to be starting as global events increasingly question conventional wisdom on the supremacy of the neoliberal economic model, unrestrained globalisation etc.
Alan Stevenson
October 1, 2016 at 7:05 am
Renewable energy
Australia has shown we have a lot of expertise in the fields of solar, wind power and tidal generation and yet our leaders appear fixated on coal. I think we are all aware that coal employs a lot of people and generates a lot of money; however, in the longer term it must be left in the ground if we are to survive. The inventor of tidal powered electrical generators has had to leave this country and is making a lot of progress in Europe – mainly Britain. Our solar expertise seems to be based mainly in Sydney but the application of it is overseas, again – in China and Germany. Of the two, tidal is independent of the time of day, solar is guaranteed for most days. Wind is fairly constant in many areas but cannot be relied on completely. I find it difficult to understand why the coal industry cannot embrace renewables in their own time in order to retrain its workers in the newer technologies. It would, of course require government assistance with perhaps both carrot and stick and this would mean that our leaders accept climate change with greater ardour. However, time is running out. Nuclear seems not to be an option, mainly because of problems with older technology. Our new submarines were designed as nuclear, but are having to be retooled as diesel which is a dirty fuel. No wonder so many of our best brains are leaving for greener pastures.