This week scientists gather to discuss Overshoot, implications of global temps going higher than global warming targets.
The world's best descended upon Austria this week for the first ever Overshoot conference. So, what happens if we don't meet our climate targets? Today The Front Page, Victoria University climate scientist Professor James Renwick is with us to delve into climate overshoot and why we should care about it.
First off, James, can you tell us what climate overshoot actually means? Sure. So the Paris agreement which was drawn up in 2015 said that the countries of the world would do what they have to do to reduce emissions fast enough to stop global warming at well below 2° above pre-industrial levels and that the countries the world would pursue efforts to stop at one and a half degrees of warming. So-
Transcripts here for readers writers and researchers
[Music] 0:05 Koda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is 0:07 The Front Page, a daily podcast 0:10 presented by the New Zealand Herald. 0:16 We're edging closer to exceeding 1.5° 0:19 C of warming globally. And scientists 0:23 will gather to understand the 0:24 implications of missing our climate 0:27 change targets. The world's best will 0:30 descend upon Austria this week for the 0:32 first ever Overshoot conference. It's 0:35 while Winston Peters delivered a truth 0:38 bomb at the UN recently, singling out 0:41 four countries for being the world's 0:43 largest emitters. So, what happens if we 0:46 don't meet our climate targets? Today on 0:49 the front page, Victoria University 0:52 climate scientist Professor James 0:54 Renwick is with us to delve into climate 0:57 overshoot and why we should care about 1:00 it. 1:04 First off, James, can you tell us what 1:06 climate overshoot actually means? 1:10 Sure. So the Paris agreement which was 1:13 drawn up in 2015 said that the countries 1:17 of the world would do what they have to 1:18 do to reduce emissions fast enough to 1:21 stop at a global warming of well below 1:25 2° above pre-industrial 1:27 but a mouthful and that the countries of 1:30 the world would pursue efforts to stop 1:33 at one and a half degrees of warming. So 1:35 the Paris agreement ranges between 1 and 1:37 a half and 2 degrees of warming and 1:40 overshoot refers to 1:43 the idea that the countries of the world 1:45 have not done enough and that warming is 1:47 going to exceed 1 and a half degrees or 1:49 maybe even 2°. So the idea there is well 1:53 yes all right that could happen but 1:55 provided we can cool things off again 1:58 fairly quickly um it may not be the end 2:01 of the world kind of thing. So, it's all 2:03 about what is the actual trajectory that 2:07 the Earth's on in terms of temperature 2:09 rise and what can we do about cooling 2:12 things down again if temperatures do get 2:15 above the thresholds in the Paris 2:17 agreement. Now, you'll be aware probably 2:20 that the bottom of the Paris agreement 2:23 1.5° 2:24 has already been breached one year, last 2:27 year was the first year more than one 2:28 and a half degrees above pre-industrial. 2:31 But that's that's not quite the end of 2:34 that story. You really need to say 10 2:36 years average of 10 years above 1 and a 2:39 half before you could say for sure that 2:42 yes, we've broken through that limit. 2:44 And we're not quite there yet. We're at 2:46 about 1.3° in the 10-year average. But, 2:49 you know, the way things are going, we 2:51 will be there by the end of this decade. 2:53 So, what more can be done? 2:55 Oh, well, everything. We're not doing 2:58 anything at all at the moment. The thing 3:01 that needs to happen is we have to stop 3:03 emitting greenhouse gases, especially 3:06 carbon dioxide. And the main way we emit 3:09 carbon dioxide is we burn fossil fuels. 3:13 So burning coal, burning oil, burning 3:15 natural gas or release carbon dioxide 3:18 into the atmosphere. And we've been 3:20 putting more and more and more of this 3:21 stuff into the air every year with one 3:24 or two little blips uh than than ever. 3:27 Half of the total emissions of 3:29 greenhouse gases humans have managed to 3:31 do uh since you know the 1700s have 3:34 happened since 1990. So we're really you 3:37 know putting our foot on the gas 3:39 literally and we're changing the climate 3:41 faster and faster. In the 30 years the 3:44 world's been talking about fixing this 3:47 problem. They've made it twice as bad 3:49 and we're just accelerating in the wrong 3:52 direction. So the world's doing nothing 3:54 apart from talking. So it would be great 3:57 to see a big roll out of renewable 4:00 energy and a big reduction in the 4:02 burning of coal and oil especially lots 4:04 of EVs and solar panels all that kind of 4:06 stuff is really what the world needs. Uh 4:10 and it's happening you know in places 4:13 China are leading the world and putting 4:16 out um solar panels and wind turbines 4:18 but they're also leading the world in 4:20 building coal fire power stations. So 4:22 it's yeah a bit of a double-edged sword 4:24 there. So yeah, what we need is just a 4:26 reduction in emissions across the globe. 4:29 And I guess that's been the theme of or 4:31 that will be one of the themes of the 4:34 overshoot conference and certainly has 4:36 been talked about at the UN 4:39 uh climate week in New York. 4:41 When do you think the world is going to 4:43 get serious? 4:46 What a great question. 4:48 Because I mean you've been in this game 4:50 for a long time, James. you're probably 4:52 sick of, you know, warning and I mean, 4:54 as soon as um everyone says, "Oh, this 4:56 is going to happen. That's going to 4:58 happen." It happens, 5:00 but nothing's done about it. 5:02 No. And I I really don't have an answer 5:05 to that question. When is the world 5:06 going to get serious? It should have 5:08 happened 30 years ago, 40 years ago even 5:11 was possible. There was already plenty 5:14 of warning back in the 1980s. Um but the 5:18 status quo has an awful lot of power 5:20 behind it. Uh the fossil fuel industry 5:23 is one of the most profitable in 5:25 history. You know there's a lot of power 5:26 and money tied up in doing things the 5:28 way we have done them for the last 100 5:30 years or so. So governments are 5:33 reluctant to really act and I think you 5:36 know governments policy makers don't 5:38 quite believe or they don't feel it. you 5:41 know, they might know the facts, but 5:43 they don't have the, you know, the 5:44 emotional response that you really need 5:46 before you take something important on 5:49 board. So, when when is this going to 5:51 happen? Um, I hope it's in the next 5 5:55 years, but it's going to take some major 6:00 extreme events in some 6:02 uh, 6:05 I guess, well-resourced rich countries 6:08 and, you know, maybe a whole lot of 6:10 deaths and destruction before 6:12 governments really take it on board that 6:14 oh gee, this actually is important. It 6:16 actually is affecting our economy and 6:18 our lifestyles and everything. So, you 6:20 know, I don't want to wish extremes and 6:22 death and destruction on people, but it 6:25 doesn't seem as though anything else 6:27 any, you know, any of the science really 6:30 tells the story. And so, a lot of people 6:32 are trying to tell the stories in 6:34 different ways through the arts and so 6:35 on. And maybe that's making a 6:37 difference. But the pace of change has 6:41 been so slow, it's been just impossible 6:44 to even see in the last few decades that 6:47 I I really wonder when we'll get on to 6:51 it. I suppose the good news, you could 6:54 say, is that humans have all the power. 6:56 You know, we are the one species doing 6:58 this. We're releasing all the greenhouse 7:00 gases into the atmosphere. Whenever we 7:02 stop doing that, we will stop climate 7:05 change within a year or two. this is now 7:07 well known. So, we'll always have all 7:09 the power, but um it's really it really 7:13 comes down to when do we use it? How bad 7:15 do we let things get in the meantime? 7:17 And that's the trade-off, I suppose, 7:19 that policy makers around the world 7:22 think about, if they think about it at 7:24 all. You know, what about short-term 7:26 profit versus long-term sustainability? 7:29 It doesn't take much thinking about from 7:30 my perspective, but uh if you're trying 7:34 to turn a buck this year, I suppose it 7:37 does take a bit of thinking about and 7:38 and this year's buck just always seems 7:41 to win. 7:43 So, yeah. 7:44 So, China recently pledged for the first 7:46 time to reduce total greenhouse gas 7:49 emissions to 7 to 10% below peak levels 7:53 by 2035. This includes expanding wind 7:56 and solar capacity, increasing 7:58 non-fossil fuel energy share, and 8:00 ramping up electric vehicle sales, but 8:03 it still falls short of the 30% of cuts 8:06 that some observers say are needed for 8:08 that 1.5°. 8:10 What does China's new pledge mean for 8:14 global climate negotiations? 8:18 Well, it's it is a step forward. It's 8:20 great to see that China is actually 8:22 pledging to actually reduce emissions, 8:24 not just at intensity of emissions or 8:26 the things they've come up with before. 8:28 So, yes, that's a step forward. That's 8:30 great. But, as you've just said, it's 8:32 it's um it's a bit weak. It's a bit 8:35 slow. You know, that there was a report 8:37 from the Intergovernmental Panel on 8:39 Climate Change that came out nearly 10 8:41 years ago now, 2018 8:43 on what do we need to do to stop at one 8:45 and a half degrees of warming. And that 8:48 document said 50% reductions in 8:50 emissions by 2030. And China's talking 8:54 about maybe 10% by 2035. So it's it's 8:57 going in the right direction, but it's 8:59 it's way too slow. China is the biggest 9:02 emitter globally. So if they did that, 9:05 that would still be a win. 9:07 But we need every other big emitter and 9:09 small emitter for that matter to do the 9:11 same. And like I said before, there's 9:14 there's not really any country that's 9:17 really managing to do that. The the UK, 9:20 yes, there's one I can think of has 9:21 reduced its emissions significantly. 9:24 Well, that's you could argue that's by 9:25 exporting those emissions. You know, all 9:27 the manufacturing that used to happen in 9:29 Britain probably now happens in China 9:31 and other Asian countries. So, the 9:33 global effect has been well pretty muted 9:37 to put it mildly. Foreign Affairs 9:39 Minister Winston Peters recently made 9:42 headlines at the UN by stating that the 9:45 world's four biggest emitters, that's 9:47 China, India, Russia, and the US, bear 9:50 the brunt of responsibility, comprising 9:52 about 60% of global emissions. He urged 9:55 leaders to quote face the elephant in 9:58 the room and described the situation as 10:00 a battle we can't possibly win. Uh it's 10:04 been described as a truth bomb. How has 10:07 that been received? And first off, I 10:09 mean, what was your first reaction to 10:11 seeing that? Because it is a bit of a a 10:13 different change in tack for for Winston 10:15 Peters. 10:17 Yes, indeed. And you could well call it 10:20 a truth bomb. I mean, he's quite right 10:22 in the sense that those four countries 10:24 are the biggest emitters in the world. 10:27 And we won't have solved the problem 10:29 until those nations really get on board 10:32 and reduce their emissions 10:34 substantially. But you know those 10:37 countries account for 60% of global 10:39 emissions which means that if you put 10:40 all the other countries together such as 10:42 New Zealand you get the other 40%. And 10:45 there's nothing to stop the the other 10:48 countries of the world doing what they 10:49 need to do. And if we could reduce 10:51 global emissions by 40% by all of those 10:54 countries getting to zero. Fabulous. You 10:57 know that would be a great step forward. 10:59 And maybe you would shame the big 11:01 emitters into doing the same thing. can 11:04 only hope. Yeah, I mean I I'm sort of 11:07 sympathetic to what he's saying and he's 11:09 quite right, but he's also kind of 11:12 trying to sidestep any responsibility in 11:14 this country and in other countries that 11:16 only emit 1% of global emissions or 11:19 less. And every country has to play 11:22 their part here. We've got to get to 11:23 zero global emissions of carbon dioxide. 11:26 That means zero countries still emitting 11:29 CO2. 11:30 So, Yep. Okay. And I'd love to see the 11:33 big countries respond to that 11:35 appropriately, 11:36 but it doesn't doesn't absolve us. And 11:39 his comment that it's a battle we can't 11:41 win is absolutely wrong. And like I 11:44 said, we have all the power. We are the 11:46 ones emitting these greenhouse gases. We 11:49 can stop whenever we like. I wish it was 11:52 as easy as saying that. So we we can 11:54 absolutely win. We being the global 11:57 community. So it's not any one country. 12:00 Even if China got to zero emissions, 12:02 that wouldn't fix it. It will be a step 12:05 another step forward. But all countries 12:07 have to act and all countries can 12:09 contribute to winning. We will 12:11 definitely win if we do this. 12:19 Another UN official stated in 1989 that 12:22 within a decade entire nations could be 12:24 wiped off the map by global warming. not 12:28 happening. 12:29 You know, it used to be global cooling. 12:31 If you look back years ago in the 1920s 12:35 and the 1930s, they said global cooling 12:38 will kill the world. We have to do 12:41 something. Then they said global warming 12:44 will kill the world. But then it started 12:46 getting cooler. So now they could just 12:48 call it climate change because that way 12:50 they can't miss. It's climate change 12:53 because if it goes higher or lower, 12:55 whatever the hell happens, there's 12:56 climate change. 12:59 It's the greatest conj job ever 13:01 perpetrated on the world in my opinion. 13:05 Well, speaking of the big four, it's all 13:08 while Donald Trump told the UN that 13:11 climate change was, and I quote, the 13:14 greatest conj job ever perpetrated on 13:18 the world. Um, what does the rest of the 13:21 world and New Zealand I suppose do when 13:24 the US president doesn't play ball? 13:28 Oh boy, 13:30 that's that's a good question. And you 13:33 know, Donald Trump's a bit of a special 13:34 case, isn't he? He says all sorts of 13:36 crazy things. And this is, you know, as 13:40 crazy as anything else I've heard him 13:41 say recently. Of course, it's not a con 13:44 job. You know there's so much of so many 13:47 mountains of scientific evidence and 13:49 understanding you know we've got the 13:52 observations we have the understanding 13:54 of the physics and all the rest of it we 13:56 have the models that predict what's 13:58 happening there's no room for 14:01 uncertainty here and it is not it's 14:03 definitely not a con job but when the 14:07 president of the US says something like 14:08 that it does of course it kind of gives 14:13 license to people in other countries 14:15 that are maybe uncertain about what they 14:17 should do to say, "Oh, well, okay, US is 14:20 is treating it like a joke. Why don't we 14:22 do the same?" So, it's it's not good for 14:24 the global conversation, of course. But 14:27 I I really wonder these days how much 14:30 Donald Trump, you know, how much weight 14:32 he carries in terms of these 14:35 international conversations. he's sort 14:37 of said so many strange things and 14:40 pissed off so many countries that uh I I 14:44 wonder whether the US is just being a 14:45 bit sidelined and you know the world can 14:48 carry on and and do what it has to do 14:49 without the US joining in and of course 14:52 that will hurt the US economy and Trump 14:54 won't be the president forever so the US 14:56 can get on board at some stage in the 14:59 meantime actually a number of US states 15:02 are doing what they need to do anyway 15:04 reducing emissions it's not as though 15:05 the federal government controls what all 15:08 of the states do. So, it's it's a it's a 15:11 bit of a mixed bag. It's not good 15:13 globally to have one of the the world's 15:16 most prominent political leaders saying 15:18 these things, but you know, I I think 15:20 most people take Donald Trump statements 15:23 with a big grain of salt, actually. 15:26 Well, you've been a climate scientist 15:28 for decades now. I hope you don't mind 15:30 me giving away your age. Um what kind of 15:33 convers has the conversations shifted 15:36 from when you began looking into climate 15:38 change uh to now? 15:42 Yes, those conversations have shifted 15:45 but they started happening at the very 15:46 least. You know you do hear a lot more 15:49 conversation around action on climate 15:52 change and you know in this country the 15:54 policy landscape's quite different. We 15:56 have the climate change commission, we 15:57 have the zero carbon act etc. the 16:01 government in principle at least is 16:02 focused on taking action on climate 16:05 change. So that's that is 16:08 quite a change over the decades that 16:10 I've been looking at all this. But I 16:12 think well it's it's a it's strange. 16:15 It's maybe not unexpected really when 16:18 you think about it. 16:19 Back in the day, back last century, end 16:22 of last century, there was a fair bit of 16:24 hope around, I guess, and the idea that 16:26 we have time and we can take action and, 16:29 you know, we'll get on top of this 16:30 problem. So, I had some faith that 16:34 governments, countries around the world 16:36 would actually 16:38 step up and really start to reduce their 16:40 emissions over the over the time I've 16:42 been working on the problem. As time's 16:45 gone on, that that hasn't happened. And 16:46 like I said actually emissions have 16:48 continued to go up. It's become sort of 16:51 more and more desperate I guess and in 16:53 the science community there's a lot more 16:56 desperation, worry, anxiety, anger even 16:59 about the lack of action because the the 17:02 problem has become clearer and obviously 17:04 more dangerous but the action still 17:08 isn't there. So everything's become a 17:10 bit more fracturous. And I suppose this 17:12 is what I'm saying. Maybe it's not not 17:14 too surprising. As the climate changes, 17:17 it puts stresses on natural systems. It 17:19 puts stresses on food security, water 17:22 security, 17:24 um even where people can live. You know, 17:27 sea level rise is already affecting 17:28 that. So things are becoming gradually 17:32 harder. Life's becoming a bit harder. 17:33 And when that happens, people generally 17:37 turn inwards, you know, circle the 17:38 wagons and look after their own. and 17:41 nationalism and you know countries 17:43 looking after themselves rather than 17:45 cooperating which is really what we need 17:47 has become the the prevalent story and I 17:50 think countries want to protect their 17:52 own economies they don't want to be 17:54 spending money on 17:56 what they might see as some possible 17:58 problem in 50 years time or something 18:01 like that of course that is absolutely 18:03 not what it is it's happening right now 18:05 so it's it's maybe to be expected that 18:10 things have gone the way that Donald 18:12 Trump describes. Um, and that's not 18:15 something I anticipated back in the 18:17 1990s. I I genuinely thought countries 18:20 would see what needed to be done and do 18:22 it. But, you know, that's that's a very 18:24 naive 18:26 thought and it reminds me of a statement 18:28 that Al Gore made in his movie, An 18:31 Inconvenient Truth, back, you know, 20 18:33 years ago. and he said, you know, he he 18:35 studied the climate system and what was 18:38 going on with greenhouse gases and all 18:39 the rest of it. And he went to Congress 18:42 in in the 1980s and he said, "Oh, I just 18:44 need to tell Congress what's happening 18:46 and they'll get on to it." And you know, 18:48 that was 40 years ago. And he did tell 18:51 Congress and they listened and then went 18:54 back to worrying about the economy. So, 18:56 it's yeah, human nature is the big 18:58 problem, you know, I think. And when how 19:01 much it will take to break through that 19:03 kind of thinking, I don't know. It 19:05 worries me how much it'll take. It'll it 19:08 will cost a lot of money and I suspect a 19:10 lot of lives before we see real action. 19:15 Thanks for joining us, James. 19:17 Sure thing. 19:21 That's it for this episode of The Front 19:23 Page. You can read more about today's 19:26 stories and extensive news coverage at 19:28 nzherald.co.n. 19:31 The front page is produced by Jane Ye 19:34 and Richard Martin, who is also our 19:36 editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe 19:39 to the front page on iHeart Radio or 19:42 wherever you get your podcasts, and tune 19:44 in tomorrow for another look behind the 19:46 headlines. 19:49 [Music] *** nzherald.co.nz
No comments:
Post a Comment