• Monday, Jul 04, 2022
  • Last Update : 04:24 pm

OP-ED: The Earth is burning

  • Published at 02:16 am June 29th, 2021
climate change
Representational image Bigstock

There are currently no grounds for optimism that we will meet the 1.5°C target by 2050

If you read the scientific literature, there seem to be countless pathways and scenarios that might lead us to global deep decarbonization by 2050, allowing us to meet the 1.5°C target. “It’s still possible,” is the message, “if only we have the political will.”

But what is the extent of our political will, and more importantly, what are the deeper social dynamics driving it? Is it not only possible, but in fact plausible that we will reach deep decarbonization by 2050 and meet the associated 1.5°C target? 

These are some of the questions that we asked ourselves. We took a new approach to the study of climate futures, one that goes beyond previous efforts which assessed futures that are merely possible or feasible. “Possible” simply describes an accordance with natural laws, while “feasible” means that there are no or few barriers to a particular future. 

For example, it is technologically and economically feasible (and clearly possible) that you sell your car and buy a bike. Bikes are a mature technology and cheaper to maintain than cars. But will you? It’s also feasible that 20% of the UK will become vegetarian by next year. But will they?

Plausible, on the other hand, means that something has more than an outside chance of occurring -- it has an appreciable probability. In the context of climate futures, this means that a scenario is not merely feasible, but also that there is enough societal momentum and political will to make that future materialize.

There is no hard, quantitative limit for “appreciable” probability or “enough” political will. But our assessment didn’t need to split hairs in this way. The evidence was overwhelming.

Assessing both social and physical plausibility

In our study, we first formed a picture from existing research of what is needed for deep decarbonization by 2050. Negative emissions technologies like BECCS -- burning biofuels for energy and capturing the resulting CO₂ -- can help. But these technologies can’t be the whole solution, because there are feasibility barriers to deploying them at scale.

Deep decarbonization requires that we reduce anthropogenic emissions in the first place. In fact, we need a year-on-year reduction in emissions from now until 2050, roughly equivalent to the 7% reductions seen during the Covid-19 pandemic. Since zero-carbon technologies can take decades to scale up and optimize, and lock-in effects commit us to the technologies we choose now for years to come, we also need to act fast.

To study the social dynamics needed for such a rapid transformation, we looked at 10 social drivers of decarbonization. We also studied the drivers’ current trajectories, but also the enabling or constraining conditions that influence their future development.

We found, for example, that consumption will keep growing due to a lack of regulation and strong cultural habits of consumption, “green” or otherwise. While the way in which we consume changed rapidly during the pandemic, shifting online, what and how much we consume is anchored in cultural habits and attitudes.

We found that divestment -- selling investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure -- is occurring to some extent, but with unexpected negative spillover effects, such as when nation states divest at home but reinvest in fossil fuels abroad. 

And we found that social movements have a positive effect in some countries, but it remains uncertain how their political vision will mature after the pandemic, or in key countries like China, where protests do not usually have an influence on national politics.

None of the drivers show enough momentum to bring about deep decarbonization by 2050, and two drivers, consumption patterns and corporate responses, actively inhibit it. Our final assessment: Even if a partial decarbonization is currently plausible, deep decarbonization by the year 2050 is not.

We then combined our assessment of social plausibility with the latest set of socioeconomic future emissions scenarios and the latest physical science research on climate sensitivity -- how much the climate will warm after a given amount of carbon dioxide emissions. 

This joint physical and social assessment evaluates warming lower than 1.7°C and warming higher than 4.9°C by the end of the century as currently not plausible.

Game over?

So, is this scientific proof that we should give up on the 1.5°C target? Absolutely not. We assessed the current state of evidence from the physical and social worlds, but the future is open.

Deep decarbonization could become more plausible, but this future would also require a good deal of tenacity. Rapid cuts in emissions may take a long time to show up in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and warming trends -- perhaps decades. Not only will we need to implement radical changes, we will also need to remain committed to seeing those changes through, beyond the time frame of one election cycle.

Though the 1.5°C target might be possible, there are currently no grounds for optimism that we will meet it. But perhaps our findings will provide exactly the motivation we need to make it happen.

Christopher Hedemann is Postdoctoral Scientist in Climate Futures, University of Hamburg. Eduardo Gresse is Postdoctoral Scientist in Climate Futures, University of Hamburg. Jan Petzold is Postdoctoral Scientist in Climate Futures, University of Hamburg. A version of this article previously appeared in The Conversation UK.

322
Facebook 322
blogger sharing button blogger
buffer sharing button buffer
diaspora sharing button diaspora
digg sharing button digg
douban sharing button douban
email sharing button email
evernote sharing button evernote
flipboard sharing button flipboard
pocket sharing button getpocket
github sharing button github
gmail sharing button gmail
googlebookmarks sharing button googlebookmarks
hackernews sharing button hackernews
instapaper sharing button instapaper
line sharing button line
linkedin sharing button linkedin
livejournal sharing button livejournal
mailru sharing button mailru
medium sharing button medium
meneame sharing button meneame
messenger sharing button messenger
odnoklassniki sharing button odnoklassniki
pinterest sharing button pinterest
print sharing button print
qzone sharing button qzone
reddit sharing button reddit
refind sharing button refind
renren sharing button renren
skype sharing button skype
snapchat sharing button snapchat
surfingbird sharing button surfingbird
telegram sharing button telegram
tumblr sharing button tumblr
twitter sharing button twitter
vk sharing button vk
wechat sharing button wechat
weibo sharing button weibo
whatsapp sharing button whatsapp
wordpress sharing button wordpress
xing sharing button xing
yahoomail sharing button yahoomail