12 years from disaster, what needs to be done to fight climate change
Leaders are gathering in Katowice, Poland to negotiate the world’s response to climate change. The 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) will last from December 3-14 and its primary aim is to reach agreement on how the Paris Climate Accords of 2015 will be implemented.
In a year which saw record weather extremes and a major announcement from the UN that we have only 12 years to limit catastrophe, the need for meaningful progress has never been greater.
To explain how COP works and what its outcomes mean for the fight against climate change, we’ve asked a series of academic experts to share their views with us.
You can read an online version of this article 
here. Share the link to spread the word about this important issue.
here. Share the link to spread the word about this important issue.
What will COP24 address?
The urgency to reach key milestones in the Paris Agreement and deal with climate change puts a lot of high expectations on COP24. – Federica Genovese, lecturer in government, University of Essex.
- Rulebook: this is the conference’s main goal – to establish consensus on how nations should implement the Paris Agreement and report their progress.
- Emissions targets: how emissions will be regulated expected to be resolved, although it’s unlikely that sanctions for countries failing to meet their targets will be agreed on.
- Finance: rich countries need to find US$20 billion to fulfil their pledge of providing US$100 billion a year of funding to help poorer countries adapt to climate change by 2020.
- Role of “big” states: domestic politics in the US, the UK, Russia and Brazil threaten to undermine climate change leadership among larger emitters.
Explainer: What to expect at COP24
How did we get here?
- 1997: Creation of Kyoto Protocol, which set binding emissions targets. It failed as the US did not ratify it.
- 2009: COP15 in Copenhagen failed to yield any agreement on binding commitments.
- 2013: COP19 in Warsaw failed to finalise any binding treaty
- 2015: COP21 in Paris generated considerable optimism with agreement reached on a legally binding action plan. But two years later, Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement.
Where are we on the road to catastrophic climate change?
We aren’t facing the end of the world as envisaged by many environmentalists in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but if we do nothing to mitigate climate change then billions of people will suffer. – Mark Maslin, professor of Earth system science, University College London
As global temperatures near 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the limit set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, scientists are increasingly anxious about how changes in the environment could work to accelerate the pace at which the rest of Earth is warming.
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet and strange recent events here, such as heathland turning brown, could be a sign that previous natural stores of carbon are no longer working properly.
A chain of self-reinforcing changes might potentially be initiated, eventually leading to very large climate warming and sea level rise. – Richard Betts, professor of climatology, University of Exeter
Explainer: The planet could be led into a "Hothouse Earth" state
What does the science demand we do to tackle climate change?
We’re failing to cut down our emissions, the technologies for Negative Emissions Technologies don’t exist at any meaningful scale yet, and there are no political drivers in place to enforce their deployment. – Hugh Hunt, reader in engineering, University of Cambridge.
Whatever is agreed at COP24 will be what is politically possible, but experts urge us to bear in mind what the science demands to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and keep global warming below or at 1.5°C.
Explainer: What must be agreed to keep warming at 1.5°C
Can COP24 save the planet, then?
Ten years after the financial crisis, COP24 should not legitimise large financial investors as the architects of a transition where sustainability rhymes with profitability. – Tomaso Ferrando, lecturer in law, University of Bristol
Representatives from pension funds, asset managers and large banks will be lobbying world leaders to favour investments in infrastructure, energy production, the transition towards a low-carbon economy.
Finance sees this transition as an opportunity to generate profit. If climate change is fought according to the rules of Wall Street, people and projects will be supported only on the basis of whether they will make money.
Explainer: 10 years on from Lehman Brothers, we can’t trust finance with the planet
At COP24 environmental movements have an opportunity to use their platform to highlight the relationship between economic growth and environmental impact, and even to discuss radical alternative futures that are not dependent on a growth-based economy. – Christine Corlet Walker, PhD researcher in ecological economics, University of Surrey
To bring about radical action on the environment, many academics believe we need an equally radical social movement. They argue that protesters should seize the initiative to attack the root causes of climate change, such as economic growth.
Let's debunk climate change denialists
Climate change is happening and it is caused by humans. This is the academic consensus, it is backed by science and it should not be up for debate. But somehow it is.
The 97%
- 97.5% of scientists who had published peer-reviewed research about climate change agreed with the consensus that global it is human-caused (2010 study from Princeton University).
- 97.1% of relevant climate papers published over 21 years affirmed human-caused global warming (2013 study involving multiple institutions).
- 97% consensus in published climate research found to be robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies (2016 study involving multiple institutions).
Explainer: The 97% and how to debunk science denialism
What does the other 3% think?
There is no coherent theme among the reasoning of the other 3%. Some say “there is no warming”, others blame the sun, cosmic rays or the oceans.
Explainer: What people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change
(Click image to enlarge)
Why do some still not believe in human-caused climate change?
The fossil fuel industry has spent many millions of dollars on confusing the public about climate change. But the role of vested interests in climate science denial is only half the picture. The other significant player is political ideology. – John Cook, research fellow in climate change communication, George Mason University
An analysis by American professor Robert Brulle found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding per year. From 2008, funding through untraceable donor networks (so-called “dark money ATM”) increased. This allowed corporations to fund climate science denial while hiding their support.
analysis by American professor Robert Brulle found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding per year. From 2008, funding through untraceable donor networks (so-called “dark money ATM”) increased. This allowed corporations to fund climate science denial while hiding their support.
At an individual level however, there is considerable evidence which shows that political ideology is the biggest predictor of climate science denial. People who fear the solutions to climate change, such as increased regulation of industry, are more likely to deny that there is a problem in the first place.
Explainer: A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial
Techniques used by climate denialists to look out for
- Fake experts: they create the general impression of an ongoing debate by casting doubt on scientific consensus.
- Logical fallacies: logically false arguments that lead to an invalid conclusion. They usually appear in myths, in the form of science misrepresentation or oversimplification.
- Impossible expectations: demand unrealistic standards of proof before acting on the science. Any uncertainty is highlighted to question the consensus.
- Cherry-picking: best described as wilfully ignoring a mountain of inconvenient evidence in favour of a small molehill that serves a desired purpose.
- Conspiracy theories: if the evidence is against you, then it has to be manipulated by mysterious forces in pursuit of a nefarious agenda. It is central to denial.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let me know your thoughts on the blog: