We are heading to damaging climate change
It is now widely accepted that unfettered global warming would be catastrophic for life as we know it. The Paris Agreement in 2015 said that to avoid major disruption, we should limit warming to 2 °C at most and 1.5 °C if possible. To get there, global GHG emissions would have to be reduced by 25% by 2030 for warming of 2° maximum and 45% to achieve 1.5°. However we are not on track to reach these goals and the IPCC reckons that even if climate commitments made by all countries are met, we are on course to more than 3 °of warming.
Worryingly, there is expected to be a big rise in GHG emissions in 2021. According to the International Energy Agency, money is being ploughed into fossil fuels as part of the post-Covid economic stimulus and higher gas prices are resulting in a switch back to coal.
Each additional bit of warming will cause enormous damage - see below the infographic from the World Resources Institute showing how 2° of warming would cause much more damage than 1.5°.
It is now widely accepted that unfettered global warming would be catastrophic for life as we know it. The Paris Agreement in 2015 said that to avoid major disruption, we should limit warming to 2 °C at most and 1.5 °C if possible. To get there, global GHG emissions would have to be reduced by 25% by 2030 for warming of 2° maximum and 45% to achieve 1.5°. However we are not on track to reach these goals and the IPCC reckons that even if climate commitments made by all countries are met, we are on course to more than 3 °of warming.
Worryingly, there is expected to be a big rise in GHG emissions in 2021. According to the International Energy Agency, money is being ploughed into fossil fuels as part of the post-Covid economic stimulus and higher gas prices are resulting in a switch back to coal.
Each additional bit of warming will cause enormous damage - see below the infographic from the World Resources Institute showing how 2° of warming would cause much more damage than 1.5°.
Telling countries what to do has not worked
Under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, developed countries agreed to legally binding reductions in carbon emissions from 2008 to 2012. This had some success with countries achieving a 25% reduction in carbon emissions by 2018, exceeding the target of 18%. The Doha amendment extended this agreement to 2020, with new targets and the inclusion of some developing countries. However ratification did not happen until 2020 and in the end was just of symbolic importance, as it became clear that this approach was not going get sufficient progress. There were a number of reasons for this:
- many developing countries did not want to have legally binding targets imposed
- the USA did not want to sign up to legally binding targets and there was a drift away from this approach by other countries
- countries wanted to be free to achieve carbon reductions in their own way
- the offsetting provisions of Kyoto allowed too much freedom for developed countries to avoid painful decisions at home, by paying for reductions in other countries
- developing countries needed help (financial and practical) to reduce GHG emissions and to adapt
- the cooperation of business and others was needed, but was not happening
- businesses continued to lobby governments against climate regulations
There has now been a change in direction. Under the Paris Agreement 2015, a more 'bottom up' voluntary approach was agreed. This involves each country putting together its plan (an NDC - Nationally Determined Contribution) and then making this plan more ambitious as time goes on.
Business as usual has continued
These days, many organisations claim environmental credentials. Although there have been examples of good environmental practice, for many, their climate response has been largely cosmetic. Also, the world's largest polluters have pretty much carried on with business as usual. The main obstacles for getting real change from business are related to the metrics, lobbying and short-termism.
The metrics
A wide range of methods has been used by organisations to help them reduce their environmental impact and to report on progress. However, the rate of improvement has been insufficient due to the following:
Lobbying
Organisations need government to put in place the right incentives and legislation to make it easy to take the green option. However, many organisations have been actively lobbying against government action. This is often done through industry associations which are funded by businesses, but these same businesses then claim no responsibility for them.
Short-termism and the conservatism of the financial sector
Traditionally, companies are assessed on their financial performance. Spending money to make a company's business model more climate resilient may make sense in the long term but, if this reduces its short-term profits, then investors would be unhappy. However, the climate emergency has focussed minds. The financial sector now aims to make environmental performance an integral part of how companies are assessed and the largest polluters are finding their shareholders/lenders are demanding action. For this they need to be able to properly assess the environmental credentials of companies. Find out how this is happening in "Mobilising Business".
These days, many organisations claim environmental credentials. Although there have been examples of good environmental practice, for many, their climate response has been largely cosmetic. Also, the world's largest polluters have pretty much carried on with business as usual. The main obstacles for getting real change from business are related to the metrics, lobbying and short-termism.
The metrics
A wide range of methods has been used by organisations to help them reduce their environmental impact and to report on progress. However, the rate of improvement has been insufficient due to the following:
- the variety of comparison methods used - making it difficult to compare different companies
- little verification - environmental statements are not robust
- shortcomings - metrics often look at what is happening now, not whether the right plans are in place for a long-term low carbon future
- company actions may not be in line with the company's environmental statements
- lack of management responsibility for environmental progress - environment has not been a priority and is often sidelined
Lobbying
Organisations need government to put in place the right incentives and legislation to make it easy to take the green option. However, many organisations have been actively lobbying against government action. This is often done through industry associations which are funded by businesses, but these same businesses then claim no responsibility for them.
Short-termism and the conservatism of the financial sector
Traditionally, companies are assessed on their financial performance. Spending money to make a company's business model more climate resilient may make sense in the long term but, if this reduces its short-term profits, then investors would be unhappy. However, the climate emergency has focussed minds. The financial sector now aims to make environmental performance an integral part of how companies are assessed and the largest polluters are finding their shareholders/lenders are demanding action. For this they need to be able to properly assess the environmental credentials of companies. Find out how this is happening in "Mobilising Business".
FURTHER INFORMATION
IPCCC Global Warming of 1.5°
looks at the harms at 1.5° and 2°
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf
IPCC's Special Report in 2018
GHGs should fall 25% by 2030 for 2 °, 45% for 1.5 ° of warming
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
UNEP's annual Emissions Gap Report 2020
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34438/EGR20ESE.pdf?sequence=8
IEA says carbon emissions to soar in 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history?utm_term=374a3a44583c2124c1c1657850cdd550&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
World Resources Institute
infographic comparing the impacts of 1.5°C of warming with 2°C
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/half-degree-and-world-apart-difference-climate-impacts-between-15-c-and-2-c-warming
Climate Home News
an update on Kyoto
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/02/nigeria-jamaica-bring-closure-kyoto-protocol-era-last-minute-dash/
Climate Action 100+ 2019 Progress Report
see how at 92% of the biggest polluters, lobbying of industry associations is not in line with their stated policies on climate
https://climateaction100.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/progressreport2019.pdf
IPCCC Global Warming of 1.5°
looks at the harms at 1.5° and 2°
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf
IPCC's Special Report in 2018
GHGs should fall 25% by 2030 for 2 °, 45% for 1.5 ° of warming
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
UNEP's annual Emissions Gap Report 2020
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/34438/EGR20ESE.pdf?sequence=8
IEA says carbon emissions to soar in 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history?utm_term=374a3a44583c2124c1c1657850cdd550&utm_campaign=GreenLight&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email
World Resources Institute
infographic comparing the impacts of 1.5°C of warming with 2°C
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/half-degree-and-world-apart-difference-climate-impacts-between-15-c-and-2-c-warming
Climate Home News
an update on Kyoto
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/02/nigeria-jamaica-bring-closure-kyoto-protocol-era-last-minute-dash/
Climate Action 100+ 2019 Progress Report
see how at 92% of the biggest polluters, lobbying of industry associations is not in line with their stated policies on climate
https://climateaction100.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/progressreport2019.pdf