On climate change targets, can success be relative?

|
Sayed Sheasha/Reuters
View of a COP27 sign on the road leading to the climate conference area in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, as the city prepares to host the COP27 summit next week.
  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 4 Min. )

Distracted by the war in Ukraine, the world has “wasted” the last year on the climate front, a United Nations report says, making “negligible” efforts to bring down CO2 emissions so as to slow global warming.

Without “system-wide transformation,” the U.N. Environment Program warned last week, there was no longer a “credible pathway” to keeping the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

Why We Wrote This

A story focused on

As the world’s chances of meeting its climate targets seem to recede, some experts suggest stepping away from an all-or-nothing approach to the 1.5 degrees Celsius ceiling agreed to seven years ago.

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency suggests that many governments are reacting to the war by prioritizing investments in green energy; world demand for fossil fuels is expected to peak within a decade or so. But governments will have to triple their annual investments if they are to hit the 1.5 C target.

That may be too much to ask. U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen calls it a “tall, some would say impossible task.” So she suggests that we stop thinking digitally, defining climate action success by binary measures such as an all-or-nothing 1.5 C target, and start thinking analog.

“We must try,” she said. “Every fraction of a degree matters. We must strive to get as close as possible.”

As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “One should be able … to see that things are hopeless, yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

We’re just days away from the most important climate conference since the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015, and it is confronting world leaders with two very different challenges.

One is dominating the pre-conference headlines. It is the urgent need for governments to rediscover their will, and reaffirm their wavering commitment, to prevent a climate emergency from escalating into a climate catastrophe.

A United Nations report last week spoke of a “wasted year” since last year’s climate conference, lamenting the “negligible” progress toward bringing down harmful emissions as most governments focused on the economic and energy repercussions of the Ukraine war.

Why We Wrote This

A story focused on

As the world’s chances of meeting its climate targets seem to recede, some experts suggest stepping away from an all-or-nothing approach to the 1.5 degrees Celsius ceiling agreed to seven years ago.

The title of the U.N. Environment Program report – “The Closing Window” – captured its message. Without “system-wide transformation,” it warned, there was no longer a “credible pathway” to meeting the Paris target of keeping the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

That is the point, according to the scientific consensus, at which the already punishing effects of climate change would risk becoming dangerously and irreversibly worse.

This is where the second challenge comes in. It has made few, if any, headlines, but it could prove critical to reigniting progress.  

It involves not just a change in policy, but a fundamental shift in mindset: an ability to think analog, not digital or binary.

Where climate change is concerned, that would mean moving away from an all-or-nothing, success-or-failure focus on the 1.5 C. target, toward recognition that every tenth of every degree on either side of it makes a real-world difference: to the number of plains parched or flooded, villages incinerated or washed away, lives blighted or lost.

The evidence has been getting starker. Though our planet is still roughly 0.4 C below the Paris target, increasingly frequent “extreme events” have been destroying woodland with wildfires, inundating plains, expanding deserts, and buffeting waterfront towns and cities worldwide.

An “analog” approach would not ignore the 1.5 C target, but it would not regard it as the only measure of climate policy success.

Michael Sohn/AP
Wind turbines turn on top of a dump next to a BP oil refinery in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, Oct. 22, 2022. Spiraling energy costs, caused partly by the Ukraine war, could be a turning point toward cleaner energy, the International Energy Agency said in a report last week. It found the global demand for fossil fuels is set to peak or plateau within a decade or so.

It would recognize that even if the window on 1.5 C does close, there’s a huge difference between capping our planet’s temperature increase at 1.6 C or 1.7 C above preindustrial levels, and the 2.4 C to 2.8 C range currently projected by the U.N. Environment Program.

And another major report issued last week did offer encouragement that those higher temperature rises, at least, could yet be averted.

It came from the International Energy Agency, and suggested that recent Ukraine-related spikes in the use of high-emissions fuel like coal are likely to prove temporary, with many governments instead reacting to the war by prioritizing investments in cleaner energy.

The IEA foresees world demand for all fossil fuels peaking fairly soon: coal within the next few years, natural gas by 2030, and oil a few years after that. By contrast, annual investment in clean energy is set to rise from $1.3 trillion today to more than $2 trillion by the end of this decade.

The rub? Even that level of investment would not put the world on course to meet the 1.5 C target. Double that figure – $4 trillion a year by 2030 – would be required, according to IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

Still, the underlying assumption of both of last week’s reports remained that with sufficient financial and political will, the target could still be reached – that while the window was closing, it wasn’t yet fully shut.

That is the message the reports’ authors hope will get through to the delegates of the nearly 200 nations convening for next week’s COP27 conference in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh – especially given the loss of momentum since last year’s meeting in Glasgow, Scotland.

David "Dee" Delgado/Reuters
Police officers arrest protesters during a climate change demonstration on Park Avenue at the residence of Stephen Schwarzman, founder and CEO of Blackstone Group, in New York City, Oct. 27, 2022.

At the same time, they appear to acknowledge the demotivating downside of thinking too digitally – of defining climate action success by the binary measure of a 1.5 C target which, U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen warned, currently seems “a tall, and some would say impossible, task.”

“We must try,” she said. “Every fraction of a degree matters. We must strive to get as close as possible.”

In other words, the Paris target is achievable. It must be achieved. But at the same time, the world should keep other goals in mind and remember the importance of restraining any temperature rises above the target as much as possible.

It’s an approach that seems to echo an oft-quoted observation by one of America’s most celebrated authors, from an age before climate change had begun to figure on the world agenda.

“The test of a first-rate intelligence,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, “is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

“One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to On climate change targets, can success be relative?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2022/1102/On-climate-change-targets-can-success-be-relative
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe