The recent Climate Change Commission report falls well short of ensuring we reduce emissions to a safe level. Jack Santa Barbara has some advice on what we should be doing.
Comments on the Climate Change Commission’s recent advice report have been mixed. The more ambitious targets have been welcomed, but also criticised for not going far or fast enough.
From a climate safety perspective the recent report is an improvement on the earlier draft, yet it remains seriously inadequate to provide any assurance that we will reduce our emissions to a fair and safe level. The suggestion to use the new targets as minimums, and to strive to exceed them makes sense, but we can do even better.
What would it take to actually make the climate safe? Setting adequate carbon budgets and transitioning our technologies is only part of the solution, and these have been addressed by others. There are also a range of non-technical issues being neglected.
Set the right targets
The Government has given the commission the wrong goal and the commission has unfortunately accepted it. The Government has essentially told the commission to set targets which only have a 66 percent chance, at best, of avoiding a 1.5C increase in global warming. This is a very low bar for such a life-threatening risk. We need the scientists to tell us what level of emissions reductions would provide a high level of assurance that we will not exceed our share of the reductions to keep us within the 1.5C target. What would our carbon budget need to be to ensure at least an 85 or 90 percent chance of success? Surely the commission has the expertise available to tell us.
Embrace disruption
Much of the reluctance to do what is really necessary has to do with how disruptive it would be to our economy and lifestyles. Yes, the changes necessary would indeed be disruptive. Our economic growth obsession and consumptive lifestyles have been significant contributors to our climate disaster, as well as other existential threats.
To assume we can easily remove the threats without significant and disruptive changes in these areas is a mental blindness we cannot afford. What we have to appreciate is that climate change above 1.5C will be massively disruptive for our children and grandchildren and all future generations. Embracing disruption is not easy, but it can be inspiring and enrich our lives in new ways. In war time we make sacrifices for the greater good. Dealing with climate change requires sacrifices on a grand scale with the stakes much higher than any war time analogy. Research shows that in times of crisis, altruism is a common response. We are capable of embracing disruption for a higher cause. The research indicates that genuine happiness often comes from overcoming meaningful challenges. What could be more meaningful than saving humanity from itself?
Massive public education
Climate change is only one example of how our economies and lifestyles are creating unsustainable conditions that threaten complex societies and the wonderful biodiversity this planet earth has produced over the eons. We have no right to destroy it. And we can live well, if somewhat differently, without destroying it. But it will require some disruption to the way we currently do things. We need to move from a mining culture to a harvest culture, where the vast majority of our food, fuel and fibre come from renewable sources. If the majority of the public does not understand the science behind these risks, how can governments possibly survive by doing what is needed? With Covid we had daily press conferences from experts. The climate emergency is an even greater threat. Where are the daily science updates to help everyone understand these risks?
Accept and extend the CCC's advice
Most of what the commission has recommended needs to be done, but more so and faster. We first need to understand the correct target to aim for (see 1 above) before we can plan how to achieve it.
Reduce Energy Demand
Fossil fuels have seduced us into thinking we have unlimited cheap energy available and don’t really need to pay much attention to how we use it. We need to come to grips with the fact we are leaving the fossil fuel era and the future will be very different than we expect because of the transition.
Renewable energy systems are desirable but also limited in a number of ways that will force changes in how we use energy. We will almost certainly experience energy scarcity in the future and we need to adjust our planning and expectations about what energy is for. We have to start thinking in terms of negawatts rather than more megawatts.
Reducing energy use to important functions will also have the benefit of reducing the amount of raw materials we currently use at grossly unsustainable levels. This will help restore natural systems so biodiversity can thrive again rather than dwindling as it is now.
Requiring product stewardship will contribute to the design of durable goods that can eventually be totally recyclable or compostable. We have to get considerably more productivity out of whatever energy and raw materials we use, and waste considerably less.
Adopting something like a Tradable Energy Quota would provide considerably more certainty and control over fossil fuel emissions reductions than the current ETS.
Adopt a wellbeing-per-joule perspective
As high-per-capita consumers of energy on a global scale, we waste a lot and there is much room for savings. Our planning and investment decisions have to start thinking in terms of how we use energy and ensure we get the most wellbeing for every unit of energy we use. Our current focus on getting the most GDP increase from energy does not correlate well enough with wellbeing, but it does correlate with environmental destruction.
Focus on wellbeing in terms of basic human needs
Our current dominant paradigm is the good life through continuous economic growth. That paradigm has brought many benefits but it has also created a dead end for humanity in altering planetary systems on which we depend for our very existence and wellbeing. Wellbeing needs to replace GDP as our national goal. And wellbeing needs to be understood in terms of basic human needs.
The literature on basic human needs is extensive and there is sufficient congruence in different approaches to make it a practical guide for policy and planning. Basic human needs not only include the obvious physical needs of food, shelter, and safety, but also psychological needs such as cultural identity, and social needs such as community connectedness and civic participation in decision-making.
Our economic system creates and services wants more than needs. We need to relinquish our preoccupation with wants and prioritize needs. Some wants may be provided once needs are met.
Yes, we also need to pay attention to economic activities, but increased GDP does not have to be the goal. There are alternative economic models that focus on human prosperity rather than using the flawed index of GDP. We need to understand and embrace them.
Plan and design for the long-term
Our public policies have a major bias for the short-term. We need to think in terms of at least a 100-year time frame, projecting the consequences of our decisions into the distant future to determine if they will endure or have significant negative consequences.
Climate change accumulates slowly over decades and is hardly noticeable until it reaches a critical stage, and then accelerates. A bit of foresight could have prevented this risk. Warnings were made but ignored. Climate change is only one example of how we let the convenience of short-term GDP growth dominate our decision-making and now we are suffering the consequences.
Change our expectations of the good life
In this time of relative plenty it is difficult to contemplate and appreciate that our current lifestyles are actually threatening our existence as a species. Our everyday experiences do not provide the feedback that we are on a road to perdition, but the scientific facts say otherwise.
Too few of us understand this (thus the need for massive public education). Collectively we fear moving away from the high levels of material consumption that characterise our current lifestyles. But much of the research on human happiness and wellbeing indicates that materialism is actually bad for our psychological and social health, as well as bad for the natural systems that maintain and sustain us. We could actually be leading more fulfilling, more meaningful and more satisfying and enjoyable lives with a different mindset. We need new visions and expressions of this new way of living to draw us to it. This is a role for our writers and artists as well as our scientists.
The Commission’s report has many good ideas but it is locked into a mind-set about how much disruption is acceptable to the public. This is a dilemma of our democratic system. If collectively we are not aligned on a policy issue then inertia creeps in, or half measures. We cannot expect the political system to move too far ahead of the public. The Government can undertake many of the suggestions above, but it can only go so far without widespread public support. We somehow collectively need to develop a vision and a plan to create not only a safe climate, but also a future.
.png?w=600)
