“When you start a journey on foot but then you realize your destination is very far away, you wouldn’t continue walking - you would jump on a bike. Similarly, we need to display the same sense of urgency” a representative from Belgium aptly summarized the strong and urgent action required by all 196 parties participating in the annual climate change summit.
In December 2018, approximately 28,000 people, including elected officials and policy makers, researchers and scientists, climate activists including students striking school, and other stakeholders attended the annual United Nations climate summit, which convened in Katowice Poland. This marked the annual summit of the Conference of Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
A Wake-Up Call from Climate Science
COP24 followed soon after the publication of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5° report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October 2018, based on a UNFCCC mandate to produce such a report issued during COP21 in Paris in 2015. The Special Report, also known as SR15, clearly states that that Earth has already reached a 1° Celsius increase in average global surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels. Two key takeaways of SR15 point to approaching dates, or deadlines. Even if future emissions are limited to what countries have pledged in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), global surface temperatures will most likely surpass 1.5° by about 2030 and 2° by 2050.
What are the implications?
Although parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere or inches of sea level rise are difficult to relate to, SR15 painted a dire picture about the impacts on different regions of the world under various 1.5° - and 2°- scenarios.
For instance, once the 1.5° threshold is reached, between 128 and 143 million people who live in coastal areas will be exposed to sea level rise and more extreme storms, a figure that increases to 141 – 151 million people for 2°. Likewise, the global risk of water stress on freshwater ecosystems doubles when comparing 1.5° and 2° scenarios. Risks for terrestrial ecosystems include a loss of between 6–18% of insects, 4–8% of vertebrates, and 8–16% of plants, in addition to increased risk of wildfires.
Similarly, the Mediterranean is very vulnerable to increased temperatures, severe droughts and water scarcity, with a more severe impact on islands than for the populations on land. The runoff is expected to decrease between 10 – 17% and lead to high risks of water deficits. Conversely, tropical regions, which include parts of West Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, are predicted to have more heatwaves, producing increased heat stress on both crop yields and livestock, while reducing the biodiversity of rainforests. In Southeast Asia, accordingly, a 1.5° scenario would lead to increased precipitation, higher flooding risk, and approximately a 33% decline in crop yield per capita.
Even if global average temperatures are stabilized at 1.5°, local average temperatures will actually be much lot higher in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where temperature increases are projected to lead to higher stress on water supply and increase of climate-change hotspots, severely impacting agricultural production and water supply.
Predicted outcomes are particularly dire for small island nations, which face high risks of coastal flooding until complete inundation, increased stress of fresh water supply, and a persistent heat stress affecting agriculture and human health. Tens of thousands of people are at risk of displacement with a 1.5° increase in global temperatures, which would likely result in 70-90% of coral reefs being lost. In a 2° scenario, approximately 99% of coral reefs will most likely be lost, with a concurrent loss of marine food webs, loss of fin fish and fisheries, and seagrass.
Pathways
SR15 identifies pathways to limit and stabilize temperature increases to 1.5° or 2°, but both require serious and urgent action at a pace and scale without precedent in human history. They would require aggressive and adaptive policies, comprehensive economic transitions, and far-reaching changes in consumption behavior. Elements of this transition include increased electrification, decarbonization of the power sector, a drastic shift in future investments, sweeping changes in land use, and emission reductions across all sectors. Both temperature scenarios also require net zero CO2 emissions worldwide by 2050, along with serious reduction of other greenhouse gas emissions.
The concept of a “carbon budget” for 1.5° and 2°, respectively, has been introduced to determine the amount of carbon emissions that will most likely lead to these temperature increases. The IPCC states that a carbon budget of 580 GtCO2 would lead to a 50% probability of stabilizing temperature levels to 1.5 degrees. However, there are high levels of uncertainty with the various calculations of the carbon budget due to the assumptions underlying the assessment models referenced in the report, and the question of how to allocate said carbon budget is even more complex. Nevertheless, the concept of a carbon budget helps characterizes the limited flexibility with which we can move forward.
Special Report 1.5 Summary for Policy-Makers
The relevant climate science including the capacity and limitations of certain technologies, climate change models, and the aforementioned pathways forward must be communicated clearly to policy-makers so they can move forward appropriately. However, some of the language, presentation, and visuals used in the summary for policy-makers were not assembled in a very comprehensible way, which may have caused policy-makers to misconstrue some key points. Upon asking some delegates, some of them confided in me that they understood that the 1.5° and 2° scenarios both present considerable dangers, and that there are ways to prevent them, but they failed to understand how.
Common Misconceptions discussed at COP24
Most of the pathways prescribed by the IPCC and other climate scientists around the world emphasize the heightened need for electrification across sectors and energy demand reduction, with a concurrent transition towards decarbonization of the power sector. Some of the rhetoric towards the energy transition at COP24 involved misinterpretations or an improper understanding of the industry, which will be clarified below.
Myth #1: “We need to aim for 100% renewables to decarbonize the electricity sector”
While renewables will play a large role in the decarbonization of the electricity sector, we cannot rely on wind and solar alone to shift our path to stabilize to 1.5°. A combination of renewables, low-carbon base load (such as nuclear or fossil fuel with CCS) and energy demand reduction through practices such as energy efficiency or demand response make up the most cost-effective approach for the decarbonization transition of the electricity sector. As stated by researchers at MIT, it is not advisable to mandate certain renewable energy technologies. Instead, a diverse energy portfolio is a more economically viable pathway towards decarbonization (Sepulveda 2018). While we may not agree with the practices of oil and gas or coal companies, we cannot ignore them entirely. They need to be a part of the solution, as investors in low-carbon technologies and to upgrade their existing plants to ones with carbon capture sequestration (CCS).
Myth #2: “Carbon Capture is Evil”
While you will always find the climate activists fighting against new transmission lines, fracking, carbon sequestration, or other controversial environmental issues, it is becoming increasingly important to make informed and persuasive arguments regarding these complex questions. Carbon reduction through CCS and biological means must play a large role in deep mitigation pathways according to most climate models (Krey et al., 2014a; Kriegler et al., 2014b) – especially those with continued levels of fossil fuel production and without drastic levels of energy demand reduction. As previously mentioned, these evolving technologies will most likely be combined with traditional energy sources to reach the zero-carbon targets.
Myth #3: “Everybody should buy an Electric Vehicle”
The COP24 President, Michael Kurtyka, launched an initiative named Driving Change Together, which promotes the decarbonization of the transportation sector through public transportation and a strong emphasis on electric vehicles. However, the Polish Minister of Energy’s claim that increased demand for electric vehicles will cut emissions and improve air quality fails to recognize a few important key factors.
The misnomer “Zero Emission Vehicle” or ZEV has the danger of assuring consumers that their driving habits will not lead to carbon emissions. Instead, consumers should be educated on the advantages and disadvantages of various technologies including electric vehicles, hybrids, or fuel cell vehicles.
Rapid electrification with a concurrent decarbonization of the electricity sector is a key strategy to reduce carbon emissions within the world’s calculated carbon budget. However, given the fact that roughly 80% of Poland’s electricity currently comes from coal, their electric vehicle initiatives could actually be doing more harm and releasing more emissions than creating a positive influence. Therefore, an informed consumer should think critically of where their energy is being supplied from before investing in an electric vehicle. The policymakers should critically consider alternatives including public transportation, ride-sharing or bicycle options.
Furthermore, current lithium-ion battery technology requires valuable natural resources such as lithium and cobalt, which are primarily being mined in South America and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) respectively. Therefore, policy-makers must look at the full life cycle of these technologies, and assess the level of reliance we want on these minerals, before advocating for them so strongly and publicly. This is especially true for the DRC, which is currently under political instability. It is imperative to remain aware of the political situation and to assess how future partnerships could help or hurt the local populations.
Myth #4: “We can expect everybody to put in the same level of effort towards Climate Mitigation”
Upon further addressing the aforementioned carbon budget, it is difficult to expect developing countries to view climate change mitigation in the same light as the developed countries that benefited from the industrial revolution and already used so much of the carbon budget.
The question of inequity is one of the most important and most sensitive topics of conversation at the international climate change conference. At one table, delegates from small island countries which are at risk of disappearing are negotiating with large superpowers that depend upon fossil fuels to stimulate their economy. It would be helpful to focus more efforts on collaboration with neighbors, because climate change does not respect any borders drawn by humans and will invariable hurt the marginalized communities and lower-income populations first. The 1.5° level is a global average of surface temperature across all geographical regions. Given the fact that the majority of Earth’s surface is covered in water, this significantly lowers the global average. Therefore, many countries actually face a 3°-4°Celsius increase from pre-industrial levels, even in the 1.5° average scenario.
Topics and Outcomes of COP24
Beyond the IPCC Report, the climate negotiations themselves led to large announcements and the passing of important agreements. The main purpose of COP24 was to formulate a rulebook, eventually known as the “Katowice Climate Package” focused on how to reach the commitments made in Paris during COP21.
A few key outcomes of COP24 include the procedure for the Global Stocktake in 2023, increased commitments by the World Bank and individual countries to the GCF, and the end of the Talanoa Dialogue which focused on helping countries define their voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While the main documents and package details are available on the UNFCC website, I would like to end with an anecdote from my last evening of the conference, at the closing plenary for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).
A long conversation was held on whether to change the wording of the final document from “note” the IPCC SR 15 or to “welcome” the IPCC SR15, which would imply that the countries were expected to implement impressionable levels of action. Many countries including the Maldives, Tuvalu, Pacific Islands, Sub-Saharan African countries, Chile, Colombia, the EU, and many other delegates stated their support to change the phrasing to welcome the report that the UNFCC had asked from the IPCC roughly 3 years prior. Many of these delegates were representing countries that were highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, as clearly explained in the IPCC report, and essentially fighting for the lives of their people.
After hearing the voices from many delegates from all over the world, the representative from Saudi Arabia expressed his discontent at the amount of time that had been put into this conversation regarding one word and refused to alter the finalized document. Since the document requires unanimous agreement – across all 196 parties – the committee was unable to move forward until everybody had agreed. After an hour-long recess, the delegates came back together with the inability to reach a compromise due to the disagreement over the one word and the refusal of Saudi Arabia, together with the support of other countries including the United States. Roughly fifteen countries expressed their deep disappointment with this outcome, together with the chairman of SBSTA, as they decided to revisit this segment of the policy paper until the following COP. The end of this event, and unfortunate outcome, marked the end of my COP24 experience.
While the international agreements and non-binding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are some of the most important outcomes to these UNFCC Climate Change Conferences on paper, I have realized that the more substantial consequences are the international connections made at the conference, the sharing of valuable research, educating the attendees who will go on to share this information with their close networks all over the world, and most importantly – the display of local efforts of the people who are absent from these conferences can create a large impact through their personal contributions at home, despite the slow-moving or lack of acknowledgement from their national government, can help inspire and drive other people to gain the courage to do the same in their local environment.
Steps Moving Forward
I would like to conclude with a few key takeaways and actions that everybody could follow with their everyday lives.
1. Eat less meat
If Arnold Schwarzenegger asking you to reduce your meat consumption is not enough to convince you, then perhaps more information could sway your decision. Given the fact that the agricultural land and pasture land must be readdressed with a new perspective in order to meet the carbon reduction goals, one very clear way that a consumer’s choices can make a big impact is through their food consumption. Ideally, about 11 million km2 of pastureland would be converted to forests and bioenergy, which would not be possible without a major shift in one’s diet. I’m not asking readers to stop eating meat tomorrow, but eating more local foods, less red meat, produce during the appropriate season, or even going one day a week as a vegetarian, could go a long way in reducing your carbon footprint. BBC has created an online resource to calculate your diet’s carbon footprint, and provides suggestions on how to choose your food wisely to reduce your impact.
2. Become a smart consumer
Though it is so much easier to allow your Echo Dot to order what you need, it is so important to think twice before ordering online. Try to buy locally – to support your local business owners. Or better yet, think about where the product was made, or what ingredients were used, in order to become an educated consumer.
3. Don’t shy away from local policy
When people asked me to call my congressman or local politician, I tended to shrug it off and thought that was somebody else’s responsibility. Even if the national government is not acting upon climate change at the rate you see fit, local initiatives can go a long way. In the United States, the We Are Still In Movement has allowed more than 3,500 cities, states, universities, and other organizations to display that they are still actively working to meet the goals defined at COP21 in Paris. Internationally, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group is a coalition of cities across the world driven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and display climate action. Even though local policymakers may be interested in environmental conservation or climate change action, they may not have the time to learn about the implications defined in IPCC SR15, or question how they could create a difference at a local level. Every student, researcher, business owner, employee, teacher, is capable of doing their own research and advocating for their own local climate change policies. This could include something on the scale of a community garden to a community solar farm, or improving public transportation to building more electric vehicle charging stations, advocating for compost pickup or the proper disposal of electronic waste.
4. Learn about your electricity bill
Most people are unaware of where their energy or water comes from, though this information is generally readily available online. Your local energy provider would be happy to explain your electricity and gas bill, and could provide you with suggestions for how to increase energy efficiency at the household or office level. Additionally, there are time-of-use rates, and different electricity tariff structures, which may be attractive if you are home during off-peak times. This type of tariff, together with the installment of smart appliances, could help reduce your carbon footprint and save you money on your monthly bill.
While these are just a few steps in the right direction, it is important to accept the increased sense of urgency, which will hopefully motivate you to find your own bike for the long path that lies ahead.
References
Doll, P. et al., 2018: Risks for the global freshwater system at 1.5°C and 2°C global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044038, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aab792.
Lee, Hoesung et. al. “UNFCC Conference of Parties 24.” IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, 15 Dec. 2018, www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/12/SR15-PartAB-ValerieSBSTA.pdf.
J. Rogelj, D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca,
R. Séférian, M. V. Vilarino, 2018, Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte,
P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors,
J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
Krey, V. et al., 2014b: Annex II: Metrics & Methodology. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1281–1328.
Kriegler, E. et al., 2014b: The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change, 123(3–4), 353–367
Marx, A. et al., 2018: Climate change alters low flows in Europe under global warming of 1.5, 2, and 3°C. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(2), 1017–1032, doi:10.5194/hess-22-1017-2018.
M. R. Allen, O. P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragon–Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y.
Mulugetta, R. Perez, M. Wairiu, K. Zickfeld, 2018, Framing and Context. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Portner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla,
A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Pean, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy,
T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
Sepulveda, Nestor A., et al. “The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation.” Joule, vol. 2, no. 11, 2018, pp. 2403–2420., doi:10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006.
