Now, this is separate from what they're already doing to cut our carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change. This is about the changes that will have to be made to infrastructure and buildings, you name it, to cope with the changes that are going to come.
This has come in the form of a letter from the Climate Change Committee, two ministers. They're the independent committee that monitors how the government is doing when it comes to managing the climate. And what's quite stark in their letter is the scenarios that the climate change committee say we all have to prepare for.
They say you have to be ready for global temperatures increasing by an average of two degrees by the end of the century or maybe even four degrees by the end of the century. And that is quite a lot higher than the 1.5 degrees of warming which is the most ambitious target in the Paris climate change agreement, which is kind of the foundation stone for how all the countries around the world fight climate change.
So, I've been hearing a lot more about what's going on here because there are a lot of climate change dots to be joined. And I've been speaking to Emma Pinchbach, who is the CEO of the Climate Change Committee, who were the authors of that letter. Emma, hello. Hello. And welcome back to Newscast.
Thank you. Feel like long time no see.
We'll get into the substance of all of this in a second, but just the processology first. So why why did your adaptation committee write this letter to the government in the first place? What was the backstory?
*****
Why did your adaptation committee write this letter to the government?
**********
So Minister Hardy, who is the minister in government in charge of climate change adaptation in DERA, which is the environment department, wrote to us to ask us for what our best advice would be on both the timeline for adaptation and the temperature that they should be preparing to adapt to the UK for. And it's the first time they've done that.
So this is us issuing that advice, but we've also set the scene for a wider framework for what the government should be doing to help us work out how to adapt the economy to the impacts of climate change.
And so Emma Hardy, the minister, what do you think she was doing by asking you to write this letter? What was she hoping to achieve?
I think they were using us in the way that the committee is meant to be used, which is to ask experts for the best scientific framing for something that the government is seeking to do. We've got a very good idea about how to mitigate, which is the technocratic way of saying get rid of emissions in the UK economy and the carbon budgets and the climate change act.
But what we're trying to do to adapt to the UK economy is much less clear and the government hasn't had that same kind of framework. So we think this is the first step in them doing that,
3:00
And you want experts and scientists to tell you what the temperature risk is and and what our best view is of where the UK should be going. How the government then prepares is obviously for them, but I think it was a totally appropriate use of our expertise.
Interesting. We'll talk about the actual substance and the the issues around adaptation in a second, but you mentioned the temperature scenarios there. And I think for me that's the initial eye-catching thing about this letter because well, okay, let's discuss it. There's a few different scenarios here, isn't there?
There's limiting the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees, which is kind of like the most ambitious goal in the Paris climate change agreement. Then there's two degrees which is the less ambitious and then there's-
You also in this letter mentioned four degrees by the end of the century. So which one of those does the committee think we're on the current trajectory to hit?
So, there's a few different things there and you're right, we spent most of the day explaining this, and I would imagine we'll continue to explain it, but the work to remove emissions from the economy and the kind of aim for where we need to go in emissions reduction in order to do our fair share of reducing emissions to have a plausible chance of getting the world down to a long-term temperature goal of 1.5 degrees is still very much the thing that we are recommending that we do.
But if you look at where the temperature is going, we're measuring I think a temperature of around 1.4 degrees globally now. And so the work of our other committee of experts is what should we do to manage the impacts of climate change as they materialize? And if you're doing risk management, anyone in a business would tell you if you're doing risk management, you plan for the worst. Given that we're 1.4 for the adaptation committee has said it is sensible for the government to start on the assumption that we could hit two degrees globally, and work all the way up to the worst case scenario, which we still can't rule out as four degrees.
*****
Doing risk management, you plan for the worst case scenario, which we still can't rule out as four degrees
**********
Now we're not saying that will happen. We're just saying when you're doing risk planning, you think through worst possible outcome and you think of minimum possible worst case outcome. And to make that more concrete for people, if you think about something like flood defenses or even the Thames barrier in London, when we last built the Thames barrier, we haven't built it sufficiently resilient enough for the climate impacts we're now experiencing now at 1.5. And we'll need to spend money on retrofitting existing defenses. And so what you don't want to do is end up advising government to do a minimal thing which then they turn out they have to do again. So that's why there's a difference.
So this is less you and your colleagues taking a view on where we're headed based on the current climate pledges by countries around the world right now.
Yeah. I mean there's a bit of that in that the reason the committee is saying it's sensible to start at two is that you can see that we are not on track for 1.4 degrees globally at the moment. And so it's kind of sensible risk management to say two, but the committee were very very careful to say the long-term temperature goal is still something we should be aiming for. And we said that both in this letter and in our advice when we advised on the carbon budgets.
Nuance, nuance, nuance. Although it is very alarming that we still have to think about a temperature increase of four degrees at all.
*****
It is very alarming that we still have to think about a temperature increase of four degrees at all
**********
[KE: I apologize. I made a mistake making this transcript readable and now it's taking me hours to fix it so the rest is uncleaned. I only started Heating Planet blog September 1st and I'm figuring it out as I go along, so bear with me.]
**********
6:30 Nuance, nuance, nuance. Um although it 6:32 is very alarming that we still have to 6:34 think about a temperature increase of 6:36 four degrees like at all. 6:39 Yeah. Although the scientists will, you 6:41 know, then a level down you get into 6:43 high or low likelihood, right? And we're 6:45 not saying four degrees is inevitable. 6:47 In fact, if you look at trends for 6:49 things like clean electricity generation 6:52 and batteries and electric vehicles and 6:54 heat pumps, which I've come on and 6:55 talked about lots of times before, 6:57 it does look like the emissions curve is 7:00 bending and that there's a good sign now 7:03 that we can rule that we might be able 7:05 to rule out some of those high 7:07 temperature outcomes. That said, not 7:09 robust enough that the scientists are 7:11 willing to do it. 7:12 And the other thing that's really 7:13 important about risk is there's a 7:15 tendency to think of it as linear as in 7:18 well it you know you can that you can 7:21 calculate what half a degree extra will 7:23 actually mean in terms of impact and 7:25 it'll be kind of a straight line.
Related post this AM:
4c above pre-industrial level by 2100 possible. UK sets out to adapt- Read and watch Daily Record Oct 15 report, Heating Planet blog
The UK must be able to handle at least 2c of global warming by 2050, climate advisors told the government this week. UK has not adapted to
7:27 Actually, one of the reasons for the 1.5 7:28 degree target is beyond 1.5 degrees 7:31 stuff just gets a lot less predictable 7:33 in terms of the impacts and the 7:35 extremes. And so, it's not out of the 7:38 question that you start to trigger some 7:39 of these things like tipping points 7:41 where there's an accelerating effect and 7:43 then you get into things like four and 7:45 the science and those things are less 7:46 clear. So, again, 7:47 we're not going to rule out the top end 7:50 because we can't yet. there are good 7:53 signs because of the energy transition 7:55 that it won't be that but equally there 7:57 are other things that we're still 7:59 looking at in the science like things 8:00 like tipping points and so the 8:02 scientists on the committee have said 8:03 two to four that's what we should be 8:05 planning for 8:06 um and then it made me go back to the 8:08 the report the climate change committee 8:10 had done about adaptation that you 8:11 published earlier this year and I mean 8:13 it's quite I don't know if it's just 8:16 that when you read the things at the 8:17 time and it's in the news cycle and you 8:19 report on it and then you move on to the 8:20 next thing but I was actually quite 8:22 shocked shocked when I went back to it 8:23 today and I sort of don't remember being 8:25 that shocked when I read it at the time 8:27 when it came out a few months ago. Um, 8:28 and the first thing that's shocking is 8:30 just the risks that we're talking about 8:32 here. Things like in one scenario half 8:35 of the UK's top quality agricultural 8:38 land being at risk of flooding. 8:40 Yeah. Um, 8:41 that's a lot. 8:42 It's a lot. I think we are saying a 8:45 quarter of all buildings, not including 8:47 any new houses that are built at risk of 8:49 flooding by 2050. We're talking about 8:52 children already missing school, 1.7 8:55 um school days a year on average and 8:58 that will get worse. We I think there's 9:00 a report out about the NHS that says 90% 9:03 of NHS buildings are at risk from 9:06 extreme heat and haven't been adapted. 9:09 You're talking about we already know we 9:11 lost 2 and a half thousand people in the 9:14 heat wave in 2022. 9:17 waiting figures for this year's heat 9:18 wave, but it will be similar because 9:19 it's a vulnerable population, not least 9:22 the elderly, for example, in care home 9:24 settings. 9:25 And we're talking about up to 10,000 9:27 people excess deaths from heat dying by 9:30 2050. You're talking about a third of 9:32 all rail and road kilometers being 9:34 affected by extreme weather by 2050. 9:37 It's these are considerable risks. And 9:40 so that's part of the reason it's good 9:42 that the government is starting to think 9:44 about what the framework that they need 9:45 to change because the other thing we 9:47 said in that report is the risks are 9:48 known 9:50 but we have said to government for 9:52 multiple years your adaptation program 9:55 is not working and we've had I think 9:57 we're on the coming up for the fourth 9:58 national adaptation plan and we haven't 10:00 seen concrete outcomes in the economy to 10:02 tackle any of these risks. Yeah, I was 10:04 going to say um that was the second 10:05 thing that shocked me about going back 10:07 to your report because you do one of 10:08 those red, amber, green tables of 10:11 monitoring the government's process and 10:13 there's a lot of red and a lot of amber 10:15 and hardly any green. So it the 10:18 adaptation process in government is 10:20 going very very badly. 10:22 Yes. 10:24 Yeah. Like agreed. 10:25 Really badly. Um but but have we worked 10:28 out why that is? Do you do you guys have 10:30 like oh it's this reason this reason and 10:32 this reason it all adds up to a lot of 10:34 red and amber and very little green 10:35 right so if you think about what we do 10:37 on emissions reduction there's a clear 10:39 plan you know we all know what the 10:40 target is and what and what date we're 10:42 aiming for so there's a kind of sense of 10:44 what good looks like and then underneath 10:46 that we do five yearly recommendations 10:49 on the road to meeting that target. We 10:51 offer advice and the government sets out 10:53 plans to deliver and then we look at 10:56 progress every year and all the 10:58 departments in government are signed up 11:00 to that because it was a a parliamentary 11:04 objective and they've got this neat 11:06 structure. In the letter today we say 11:09 that's what's missing on the adaptation 11:11 side. So we've got an national 11:12 adaptation program but we don't really 11:14 have a sense of what outcome we're 11:16 trying to achieve in any government 11:18 department. There's not cross government 11:20 working on this and this is the first 11:22 step to the government deciding what 11:24 they're aiming for. You know, is it 11:28 to focus on the most vulnerable in a 11:30 heat wave for example and good looks 11:31 like critical services staying open and 11:33 people in care homes and schools being 11:34 protected. It's this kind of detail 11:37 that's missing. And if we have that, we 11:40 can then 11:42 make sure that parliamentarians get the 11:44 information they need to hold government 11:45 to account and they can get buy in 11:47 across white hall. And while that's 11:49 missing, no one no one really knows what 11:52 we're trying to deliver. So I think I 11:54 know it's quite technical. I know it's 11:57 about sort of government policy 11:58 frameworks rather than the actual 12:00 measures, but getting that right is the 12:03 important first step. The other thing is 12:04 we're doing a report called well adapted 12:06 UK which we'll be publishing in the 12:09 spring. It's our five-yearly really 12:11 serious advice to government on what 12:13 adaptation should look like. And for the 12:14 first time we're going to get into what 12:16 good could look like in different areas 12:17 of the economy in food. You've mentioned 12:18 farming in healthare in education you 12:21 know right across the economy and make 12:23 proposals for 12:24 the solutions to make it better. 12:26 And I mean does the government have 12:28 an explanation or a defense for why 12:31 they've not done so well in all of this 12:32 stuff? And is anything they say about 12:34 that is that believable? 12:36 They've responded to our advice 12:37 previously and it kind of what it turns 12:39 into is the government committing to do 12:40 things and then national adaptation 12:42 program. But I would guess 12:45 that this lack of clarity about what 12:48 they're trying to achieve. You know, 12:50 actual objectives from government given 12:52 out to the departments, you know, a 12:55 cross departmental agreement of what 12:57 they're all trying to do. money for the 12:59 measures and then kind of a delivery 13:01 mechanism, a much better national 13:03 adaptation 13:05 um program. It's it's this stuff that 13:07 often gets the wheels turning in 13:08 government and that's been missing 13:10 unlike on the emissions reduction side. 13:12 I mean Ed Milliband is always talking 13:14 about the big government mission to take 13:16 all the carbon dioxide out of the 13:19 electricity generating sector in the UK. 13:21 Do you ever hear him talking about 13:22 adaptation? 13:24 I think the government's mission is very 13:27 much about emissions reduction and 13:32 less about 13:33 and less about and has been less about 13:35 this apart from the minister has written 13:37 to the climate change committee and said 13:38 look we want to do this this is the 13:40 first step please give us your advice so 13:42 it's a new government they've asked us 13:44 for some advice I really hope that this 13:46 turns into something really thorough for 13:48 what they're trying to do for the UK 13:52 economy and for society as we start to 13:54 experience more significant impacts of 13:56 climate change. 13:58 I just keep thinking about what you said 14:00 earlier on about the the TAM's flood 14:02 barrier. And actually, that's quite a 14:03 good example of all of this because we 14:06 all look at it and we sort of pat 14:07 ourselves on the back that oh, it was a 14:09 really clever bit of engineering. It was 14:12 done at the right time. It actually even 14:14 looks quite nice when you can go for a 14:16 walk and it looks quite good on TV. And 14:18 yeah, we are sort of a bit complacent 14:20 about it, but you're basically saying if 14:22 if the government doesn't get its act 14:24 together and start thinking about how to 14:25 upgrade that piece of infrastructure, 14:28 then either it's going to get 14:30 overwhelmed and there'll be a massive 14:31 flood in London, which will come at a 14:33 massive cost to everyone, whether you 14:35 live in London or not, um or we'll have 14:38 to pay loads more to build a new one 14:42 rather than investing in a better one. 14:44 Now, that's what it comes down to 14:46 really. That's the whole thing in a 14:47 nutshell if you could put the terms 14:48 flood barrier in a nutshell. 14:51 Well, I think it's I mean the one that I 14:53 think about a lot at the moment is stuff 14:54 like air conditioning and hospitals 14:56 because we've just had a heat wave and 15:00 we andor in care homes where we know 15:04 that we're going to get more heat waves 15:06 with more frequency even now. We know 15:09 that the NHS has state that our care 15:11 home settings that our schools are not 15:13 prepared and we know what the 15:15 consequences of that are both in terms 15:17 of health and miseducation. 15:19 There should be a plan in government 15:21 arguably to do something about that and 15:23 the fact that it's not being done would 15:25 just mean cost you have to you will have 15:27 to do it at some point and how those 15:29 costs fall 15:30 will likely be more expensive. So 15:34 on the benefits of infrastructure, 15:35 that's a classic example of a trade-off 15:37 though, isn't it? Because where's 15:39 treating the health secretary will have 15:41 to decide whether to spend a pound on, I 15:44 don't know, um rebuilding a crumbling 15:47 hospital or fixing the roof of a of a 15:50 hospital or a pound on investing in air 15:53 conditioning and hospital. And actually 15:54 maybe the patients would prefer that it 15:56 was just a bit less crumbly rather than 15:58 a bit climate adapted. 16:00 Yeah. But I suppose if you've got good 16:01 advice on what adaptation could look 16:03 like, what you're essentially doing is 16:05 making sure that patients in 10 years 16:07 time aren't annoyed that when you 16:09 repaired the hospital, you didn't think 16:11 about putting the cooling measures in at 16:13 the same time. Right? So, there are some 16:16 tradeoffs. There are also 16:19 ways of making sure you're not spending 16:21 money twice because you build something 16:23 to the wrong size, you build something 16:25 in a flood plane, you don't have 16:28 cooling put into your new buildings, 16:30 whatever it is. You're not planting 16:32 trees when you're putting up new 16:34 estates. It I think it's also about 16:37 saving money in the long run. The 16:39 climate change committee's job is to try 16:41 and give government a good advice about 16:42 like what those trade-offs might look 16:44 like, making decisions on them obviously 16:46 for ministers and and we're doing all of 16:47 that analysis in our well adopted UK 16:49 report which is coming this spring 16:51 and I look forward to reading it. 16:52 Another thing I've put in my phone 16:54 calendar on the basis of this 16:55 conversation. Um just lastly, and I know 16:57 your job doesn't allow you to really get 17:00 political um but I'll ask you the 17:02 question anyway. Um, I mean, how does it 17:05 feel in the current kind of political 17:07 conversation we're having where you've 17:09 got Cammy Basinox saying a conservative 17:12 government would repeal the climate 17:14 change act and approach the whole net 17:16 zero thing very differently. And then I 17:18 mean, I'm thinking about Zack Palansky, 17:20 the green leader, who was sat in the 17:21 newscast studio a few weeks ago talking 17:23 about his party conference, and he said 17:24 his his priority wasn't necessarily like 17:27 the environment and climate change. It 17:29 was the cost of living and people's 17:31 bills. I'm hearing a lot at the moment 17:33 from the opposition parties and from the 17:35 government about energy bills, cost of 17:38 living, economic growth. And I think 17:41 what we said in the seventh carbon 17:42 budget analysis is that when you look 17:45 out to 2050, 17:47 removing our dependency on fossil fuels 17:50 saves money on the household bill. It 17:52 saves money on driving costs. We think 17:55 it is 17:57 the cost to GDP is about 0.3% of GDP a 18:00 year to rewire the entire economy. It 18:03 makes us more secure from a future gas 18:05 price spike. There are lots of economic 18:08 reasons that you would do this anyway. 18:10 If you're worried about things like 18:11 industrial electricity prices, you want 18:13 new industries and all of that stuff. I 18:16 think getting that message across is 18:18 really important. That's the first 18:19 thing. And then I think thinking about 18:22 today and adaptation, the climate change 18:24 act is also the legislation that enables 18:27 the climate change committee to give 18:29 independent adaptation advice to 18:31 government. It it sets up the framework 18:33 for adaptation in the UK such as it is 18:35 and is the place to go for building it 18:37 out. I haven't heard any political party 18:40 say that climate change isn't happening 18:41 and there won't be significant risks to 18:43 the people of this country. And so I 18:46 think happily 18:48 thinking about how we plan for climate 18:50 change impacts is something that there 18:52 is still political consensus on. The 18:53 last thing I'd say though is those 18:55 impacts get worse if you don't meet 1.5 18:58 degrees. So we're twice as likely to 19:00 have serious flooding events at 2° and 19:02 1.5°. Um we are going to see we're much 19:05 more likely to have extreme heat waves 19:07 at 2° and 1.5°. So adaptation is 19:10 important, but you still have to answer 19:12 the question of how big do you want the 19:14 impacts to be for the UK public if you 19:17 don't intend to try and do our bit to 19:19 reduce emissions globally. 19:21 Emma, thank you very much. 19:22 Thank you-
[KE: Everything climate scientists predicted about global warming since the 1970s is coming true, only faster]
No comments:
Post a Comment