 |
| All bad news, from just the last 2 years |
All of the above headlines share one common thread: they are conditions directly caused by, or exacerbated by, climate change. Perhaps you think it's just a "global" problem that doesn't affect you, maybe only those living in Middle Eastern deserts or around the Arctic Circle. But Jakarta also? See, not even my kampung is spared.
... So this lead me to spend the weekend going through the 2018 IPCC report, which made a splash last October. The full report is 400+ pages long and written in an esoteric format (because it is not original research; it's basically a summary of other people's existing primary research). I skipped the lengthy PDF download (it's even longer than the Mueller report) and went straight to the "Summary for Policymakers", which is still 32 pages long, and read the charts first. Still, it's amazing what we can learn by browsing a handful of diagrams -- especially for a layman with zero knowledge of environmental science.
So the "Global Warming of 1.5⁰C" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is really a misnomer. We are really on pace for something like 3-4⁰C of warming (against a baseline of year 1850 -- approx. the start of the industrial revolution, when we started using fossil fuels en masse). The paper talks about 1.5 degrees, but it's an extremely optimistic scenario based on aggressive transformation of the global economy. Nevertheless, the research is unequivocal that the warming is anthropogenic -- caused by human activity -- which is good because it means we can actually do something about it.
The direct impact of climate change is devastating:
- Sea-level rise at least 10cm for every 0.5C rise of global temperatures, and ice sheet loss is irreversible over >100,000 years
- Biodiversity and ecosystem loss on land and sea
- Climate-related risks to health, food security, and water supply
Avoiding the most serious damage requires massively transforming the world economy and energy usage within just a few years. If you thought the Green New Deal was batshit crazy, then brace yourself:
- Damages will be spread worldwide but unevenly. >50mn people in the US, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam will be exposed to coastal flooding
- To prevent >1.5C of warming, the report said, greenhouse pollution must be reduced by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and 100% by 2050.
- By 2050, use of coal as an electricity source would have to drop from nearly 40% today to between 1-7%. Renewable energy such as wind and solar, which make up about 20% of the electricity mix today, would have to increase to as much as 67%.
Now let's go to the charts:
Since the industrial revolution, it took us some 140 years to pollute the earth and raise global temperatures by 0.5C; the next 0.5C took us just 30 years; and the next 0.5C is expected to take us <20 years, if not sooner. It's clear that we've taken earthly resources for granted without much care of what's left behind.
The above shows that our civilization produces 40 Gigatons of carbon emissions every year, and that we need to reduce it *down to zero* in just 30 years to achieve our targets. Can we just blame China and press them to, like, do something? Let's turn to MIT Technology Review.
So, the answer is a resounding "No". China's is the highest in the world, but even combined with USA, EU, and India, they amount to just 15% of annual greenhouse emissions. This is a global problem in desperate need for a worldwide, coordinated solution.
The above shows the uneven distribution of temperature change: the poles bear the brunt. For its part, Russia is fully embracing the problem by accelerating the creation of a new shipping route, while the US only wishes it could do the same //sad but true.
So we need to fundamentally change how we generate energy. Nuclear is a good source: very low carbon footprint, we just need to solve the cost issue and that pesky problem of long-term radioactive waste storage -- difficult yet shouldn't be intractable challenges. Solar, wind and hydro are also possible, but they tend to be unreliable, depreciates rapidly within <20 years, and surprisingly, have (potentially large) carbon footprint and ecological impact. The solution is likely a combination of several approaches, implemented in managed moderation. Or maybe there's some new idea in the horizon, some technological innovation, but it's no excuse to postpone making good on environmental policy. We can already see new developments that can help us better adapt to the changing world, like more resilient crop breeds, and satellite imaging to better prepare for wildfires..
---
Humanity has shown great ingenuity and staying power in resolving seemingly existential threats. Remember the hole in the ozone layer caused by aerosols and CFC? It's healing, and should be completely "cured" by 2030.
But if we've learned anything about American leadership on this greatest challenge of our lifetime, it has failed us.
