So is our work all done?

Posted by: Philip Sutton Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:29 am (PST)

Dear Greenleapers,

The Australian Federal Government has started its climate U-turn to get in (just) ahead of the UK releasing its Stern Review economic analysis (see other Greenleap postings). The UK government is moving to lock in a big investment program to move the economy towards a zero carbon structure.

My guess is that with the UK ramping up its profile and real action on climate, and with Australia tagging along behind (the UK now, instead of the US!) it only a matter of time before the US makes a similar policy shift. Whether the Republicans make the shift or whether it is done under Democrat leadership is not yet clear. But they will shift.

So is our work all done? After the champaign has been drunk can we take a long holiday (or for some of us who have been working on this for quite a few decades move into graceful retirement!)?

It's definitely worth celebrating the major milestone that we are reaching. But the job is still only about 1/3 done.

Most climate activists (in government, industry and also in the environment movement) think that the goal to be achieved is either a 60% reduction by 2050 (a goal that is based on 5 year old science and is well past its use by date) or the newer 90% goal by 2030 being advocated by George Monbiot and UK Friends of the Earth (both goals are compared to the 1990 level).

Unfortunately, the freshly minted 90% goal by 2030 goal is already out of date or more accurately it is based on a misreading of the latest science.

What we greenies need to do, now that the climate action tipping point has been reached, is that we need to go back to basics and get the goal right at last.

The reality is that we have too much CO2 in the air right now - and the consequences will be dire just from what we have got now (a further 0.5 ºC rise is built in even if not a single extra excess CO2 molecule goes into the air). So there is no room in the air for more emissions from anyone - whether in developed or underdeveloped countries.

The target has to be zero greenhouse gas emissions, plus taking CO2 out of the air.

There is a small chance that we could trigger a 2ºC warming over the pre-industrial levels with the CO2 that is in the air even now. Within 10 years we will have 400 parts per million of CO2 in the air (unless we take dramatic action now) and there is perhaps a 20-30% chance that this level of CO2 will cause a 2ºC warming.

Many climate scientists think that truly catastrophic climate change will be triggered by a 2ºC warming - for example by the end of the century half of the land globally could be subject to severe drought and about 1/3 not capable of supporting agriculture at all, virtually all the Amazon rain forests are lost to fire and non-forest ecosystems, the complete melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets made irreversible, serious sea level rise locked in and underway, etc.

So, if every country needs to go for zero emissions (plus taking excess CO2 out of the air as well), how fast do we need to act?

If we could wave a magic wand and get to zero emissions right this moment that's what we should do. But given that that's not possible what should we do that is realistic?

Basically we should get to zero as fast as is humanly possible. We can maximise the achievements that are humanly possible by realising that we are in a real state of emergency. Based on the speeds of industrial change that have been demonstrated to be possible in other compelling crises (eg. WW2) we know that we could change the output of the present economy in as short as 12 months (from the start of the emergency program) and this changed output could include the new equipment and infrastructure we need to retool industry and households so that they can achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade. If in the process of gearing up to act on the sustainability emergency we discovered that is was possible to act faster then we should do that.

Greenies have been pushing for decades for the mainstream to take climate change seriously. We have now achieved the first stage of this. We need to make sure that we don't stick with the old compromised goals that looked brave and unachievable 12 months ago but that are no longer the best expression of what needs to be done.

The environment movement needs to conduct a serious review of its greenhouse gas reduction goals before committing to revised and toughened goals that will still not prevent serious damage from climate warming.

Things are likely to move very fast on climate change until Governments lock in for a decade or so with their preferred response investments. We do not have time to work through yet another drawn out round of inadequate responses. So green groups need to leapfrog over the next few months to the goals and solutions that will actually solve the problem and we need to push for these very hard.

If we push for the declaration of a formal emergency then what's possible can change dramatically for the better.

Later this year the Greenleap Strategic Institute will publish a major report that critiques the current CO2/greenhouse gas reduction targets. We hope this report will assist organisations to set new practical targets that would be able to solve the climate problem if they were achieved.

Cheers, Philip

Philip Sutton
Director, Strategy
Green Innovations

http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/