The rising temperatures we are now witnessing cone not just from the CO2 currently being emitted but also the accumulation of CO2 over the centuries. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for anywhere between 300 and 1000 years, constantly acting as a blanket keeping in the sun’s warmth. For humans and the environment that best suits us, the ideal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 280 and 350 parts per million (ppm). That was the level prior to the industrial revolution when we began significantly increasing the emission of carbon dioxide beyond the Earth systems capacity to absorb the extra CO2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere now stand at 425 ppm, reflecting the continued and increasing emission of CO2.
Countries that industrialised first have been contributing to this problem for some 175+ years. Newly industrialised countries for a shorter time span. The amount produced by countries in both scenarios varies reflecting degrees of heavy industry, levels of consumer consumption, dependency on fossil as opposed to alternative fuels etc. Each country can be judged to have a ‘climate debt’ according to how much carbon dioxide it has cumulatively contributed towards global warming since industrialisation. The debt can be costed in terms of what proportion of the negative costs of climate change – its adverse effects on health, the cost of adverse weather events, etc.
According to the IMF’s report, Settling the Climate Debt (2023) “It can be argued that each global citizen has an equal right to an environment unaffected by climate change. This implies that countries with high climate debt because of their high emissions should compensate countries that have caused less damage to the environment.” (1) And clearly if countries fail to curb their emissions, that debt will be constantly increasing.
The report also attempts to put figures to show the scale of the debt. “Climate debt can be estimated based on actual and projected emissions and the social cost of carbon, which measures the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. We find climate debt to be extremely large—some $59 trillion over 1959–2018 (Chart 1)—and projected to increase by another $80 trillion during 2019–35. The size of each country’s climate debt reflects both the size of its economy (which is positively correlated with emissions) and how intensively it uses fossil fuels (thus generating emissions) for every dollar of economic output. The composition of energy use (for example, heavy use of coal) has an impact as well. As of 2018, the largest contributors were the United States ($14 trillion), China ($10 trillion), and Russia ($5 trillion). Beginning in 2018, developing economies will account for a larger share of climate debt, given their relatively higher economic growth.”
These figures are large. The report notes “Climate debt is substantial relative to government debt; in G20 countries, it is about 81 percent of GDP, compared with average general government debt of 88 percent of GDP in 2020.” Perhaps for this reason, the report does not suggest ways in which this debt might realistically be repaid to those who have suffered the impact of climate change – and perhaps that was not the purpose of the report.
Rather the report goes onto explore how countries through their Nationally Determined Contributions, mandated by the Paris Agreement, are in fact reducing their emissions and thus reducing the ongoing rate at which their climate debt is accumulating. The IMF feels hesitant about asking countries both to reduce their emissions (which does come with a cost implication in the short term at least) and asking them to repay their climate debt. The report surmised that “Instead, advanced economies may need to focus on reducing emissions over a longer time period or aggressively compensating developing economies for the damage caused by climate change, including through more generous climate financing.”
However the report does conclude: “Climate debt from CO2 emissions is large and unevenly spread across the world’s economies. The size of the debt—and its disparity among countries—portends contentious discussions on countries’ fair burden in slowing climate change and the level of assistance to developing economies to compensate for these differences.
“Climate debt per capita is projected to be much higher in advanced than in developing economies, even under full implementation of NDCs by G20 countries. This implies that advanced economies may need to make additional efforts to achieve fair burden sharing in the fight against climate change.”
So whilst there is no clear strategy as to how the climate debt should be repaid – and continue to be paid as the impact of our emissions continues – at least there is the acknowledgement that the current situation between those who contributed most to the climate crisis and those who suffer the most, is unfair.
Base lines shift not only in our psyche but in science too.
“A heatwave is an extended period of hot weather relative to the expected conditions of the area at that time of year, which may be accompanied by high humidity…[It is] met when a location records a period of at least three consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures meeting or exceeding the heatwave temperature threshold.” (1)
Heatwaves are thus relative rather than absolute. As temperatures have risen, so the threshold for a heatwave has increased. (2) In London the threshold was 26C but as of 2022 it is now set at 28C. We have had four heatwaves this summer in London, so I guess it is possible that the threshold marker will be raised again.
Climate change means that the likelihood of hotter and more prolonged heatwaves will increase. Culturally in the UK, the pessimistic view is that our summers of cold and wet and not as good as the long, hot and relaxing summers that Europe enjoys. Therefore spells of hot weather are seen as things to be enjoyed! We have not yet come to understand that heatwaves can be uncomfortable, damaging for our health and destructive for agriculture.
Our buildings and urban areas – unlike many of their European counterparts – are not designed to provide shade and protection from high temperatures. Nor are our working practices adapted to cope with excess heat. High temperatures do damage our health: the heat wave in June of this year likely caused 600 deaths. (1) High temperatures and lack of rain damages both crops and livestock. 84% of UK farmers have reported reduced crop yields. (2) With many other countries on whom we rely for food imports similarly affected, rises in food prices and shortages are inevitable.
Rising temperatures should not be seen as a means of getting a suntan, but treated as real risks that need to be addressed if we care for people’s (and other living things’) wellbeing both here and world wide.
Last week I was in eastern Switzerland. The alpine meadows were full of a rich diversity of flowers, butterflies of all colours & sizes, bees, beetles, and grass hoppers. It was wonderful! But then I pondered, was this a normal amount of insect life that simply highlighted the lack back at home? Checking out via the internet, it seems that Switzerland like the UK, is witnessing a sharp decline in biodiversity including insects, due to issues such as urban expansion, intensified farming and climate change. (1)
We tend to assume that we see is normal because why wouldn’t it be? Our perception of normal is generally based on our own experience, culture and what we read in the press.
When I was a child, buddleia bushes were nick-named butterfly bushes because their flowers attracted so many butterflies. In comparison when I look at our garden now, I’m saddened by the lack of butterflies – you can count them on one hand. However for my children that number of butterflies is normal: they have not known it otherwise.
Similarly as a child, I remember having to clean the car windscreen of a thick grease of dead insects – especially after a long journey – simply because there were so many flying insects around. My children have not had that experience, and for them, the current – small – number of insects is normal.
This experience of what is normal is termed the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’. It doesn’t just affect our assessment of normal levels of butterflies, but also our assessment of ‘normal’ temperatures – summers were on average cooler in the past, but we have become acclimatised to hotter summers and now 26C is not perceived as that hot, and 30C isn’t seen as a cause for concern.
The shifting baseline syndrome also affects our understanding of roads and cars. (2) We perceive having a car – or two – as normal, and that being able to drive anywhere and everywhere is not just normal but a right. We don’t remember the past when not everyone had cars, when most people relied on public transport, and when you could even use the railway to move your household contents! (3)
Another well known syndrome is that of the ‘boiling frog’. Because the water only warms slowly, the frog being a cold blooded creature doesn’t react to the grow in heat until it is too late. Until that point each degree of warming doesn’t signal a warning to the frog. Humans seem to react to climate change in the same way: we accept each degree of warming as either a pleasure or a mere inconvenience without any sense of the danger signals we should be responding to. Climate change is dangerous. It leads to life-threatening floods and heatwaves, life-threatening storms, poor harvests, food shortages, droughts, conflicts and mass migration.
If we don’t see the scale of the changes around us, and don’t perceive the risks we face, we are not going to take appropriate action to either protect ourselves or to prevent the worst from happening.
O children of Zion, be glad and rejoice in the Lord your God; for he has given the early rain for your vindication, he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the later rain, as before. The threshing-floors shall be full of grain, the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. Joel 2:23-24
Rain in due season – and likewise warm and cold weather in their respective seasons – are key to good harvests, whether that is for the crops we humans grow or for the food upon which wild life depends. One of the consequences of human made climate change, is the disruption of weather patterns. Even in the UK we have lost valuable crops because they have shrivelled due to drought, been drowned by floods, or never thrived due to lack of warmth.
The unpredictable weather also impacts insect life and breeding patterns of wildlife. Birds nest too early and find an insufficient supply of insects to feed their young. Insects come out of hibernation too soon and are killed by late frosts. Articles ice melts too early and polar bears cannot catch enough prey to feed their cubs.
We should be concerned about addressing the climate crisis because without rain in its due season we all suffer.
One of the slogans of climate activism is ‘Make the Polluters Pay’ which feels very right and grounded in what is just – a sort of global scale ‘Rylands and Fletcher’ case: if A uses the land and in so doing damages land belonging to B, then A must pay damages to B. So if Shell’s extracting of oil pollutes the adjoining land, Shell should pay the appropriate sum in damages.
Burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere, increasing levels of carbon dioxide, fuelling climate change and triggering damaging adverse weather events such as floods, droughts, wildfires etc. logically the polluters – those burning the fossil fuels – should pay up. But fossil fuels have been burnt by so many different people – individuals heating their homes, small metal workshops, whole industries, transport systems etc -and over a considerable period of time. The United Kingdom has produced a cumulative total of 79,777,710,000 tonnes of CO2 since 1750. When we then call on the Government to ensure payment of a fair share in climate finance to vulnerable countries in the global south, that payment needs to reflect the scope of the damage our nation has caused.
Over the next two weeks we hope that we can count on the world leaders agree and enact radical policies that will curb the inexorable rise of the climate crisis. At last year’s COP28 they agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in what was a very woolly agreement. This year, with conviction, they need to agree to not just phase out but end our use of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are the biggest source of CO2 emissions which drive climate change. Currently carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at 423.58 ppm (parts per million) – and rising. This is way above the safe level of 350ppm which was passed in 1990.
Scientific concern about the adverse affects of climate change in the Earth capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, extends to the land as well as the oceans.
“In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed. The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon…
“A paper published in July found that while the total amount of carbon absorbed by forests between 1990 and 2019 was steady, it varied substantially by region. The boreal forests – home to about a third of all carbon found on land, which stretch across Russia, Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska – have seen a sharp fall in the amount of carbon they absorb, down more than a third due to climate crisis-related beetle outbreaks, fire and clearing for timber.
“Combined with the declining resilience of the Amazon and drought conditions in parts of the tropics, the hot conditions in the northern forests helped drive the collapse of the land sink in 2023 – causing a spike in the rate of atmospheric carbon.”
This shortfall or decline in the carbon absorbing capacity of the natural world is a serious concern when we are relying on that capacity to achieve a net zero target. Indeed if this persists, we will have to reduce our human enduced carbon emissions faster and at a greater rate.
Existential means pertaining to existence – including relating to or affirming existence. When used as an adjective to describe a threat, it is used to mean a situation where continued existence is in question. For example, the threat of nuclear war can be described as an existential threat.
Is climate change an existential threat?
Rising global temperatures are a threat to human life. They are also a threat to the world’s flora and fauna. They are a threat to ice sheets and glaciers and so create the threat of rising sea levels. They are threat to weather patterns creating droughts, floods, heat domes, wildfires, storms etc – all of further increasing the threats to human and other life forms on earth. These threats to life – both present and future – have been widely and extensively studied by scientists across the world.
To quote from NASA’s website: “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organisations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Further more “It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today’s civilisation.
“NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world, illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.” https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
In February 2021, David Attenborough in addressing the UN Security Council called climate change “the biggest threat to security that modern humans have ever faced”. He went in to say “If we continue on our current path, we will face the collapse of everything that gives us our security,” he said: food production, access to fresh water, habitable ambient temperature and ocean food chains. The poorest — those with the least security — are certain to suffer. “Our duty right now is surely to do all we can to help those in the most immediate danger.” https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14445.doc.htm
It is not just scientists that term climate change as an existential threat, but renowned world organisations too.
In 2019, Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change wrote, “Once a distant concern, climate change is now an existential threat and the greatest challenge facing this generation. It is abundantly clear that business as usual is no longer good enough. Rapid, deep and transformative hanger is needed throughout society – not only to reduce emissions and stabilise global temperatures, but to build a safer, healthier and more prosperous future for all.
“Our goals are clear and the science is non-negotiable. We must limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and, on the road to doing so, achieve climate neutrality by 2050.This must be done urgently and cooperatively; a global project requiring the best efforts from all nations, all businesses and all people.” https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Climate_Action_Support_Trends_2019.pdf
In December 2020, five years after the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change by world leaders at COP21 in 2015, the International Energy Agency reported:
“The Paris Agreement has been ratified by 189 of the 197 signatories ─ with scope for more to do so. Since the signing, governments, companies and citizens around the world have started to take action. Indeed, addressing this existential threat is the global challenge we face.
“This has meant a special responsibility for the IEA, which as the global energy authority has a mandate to promote energy security, economic development and environmental protection. Keeping the lights and heaters on, keeping transport moving, these are themselves critical dimensions of our economies and lives. And we have to make sure we can keep doing them in a sustainable way. Energy is not a problem – emissions are the problem.
“The IEA has looked at the energy sector’s impact on climate for more than a decade, and we have significantly ramped up our efforts in recent years under the leadership of Executive Director Dr Fatih Birol, with a focus on supporting countries in their transitions to clean energy. Energy systems that continue to worsen climate change are making all of us more vulnerable and less secure.”
Two years later in September 2022, the IEA reported:
““We are in the midst of the first truly global energy crisis, with devastating knock-on consequences across the world economy, especially in developing countries. Only by speeding up the transition to clean sustainable energy can we achieve lasting energy security,’’ said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Through international collaboration, we can make the transition quicker, cheaper and easier for everyone – on the back of faster innovation, greater economies of scale, bigger incentives to invest, level playing fields and benefits that are shared across all parts of society. Without this collaboration, the transition to net zero emissions will be much more challenging and could be delayed by decades.” https://www.iea.org/news/international-collaboration-gap-threatens-to-undermine-climate-progress-and-delay-net-zero-by-decades
The previous year in the IEA’s report Net Zero by 2050: a Road map for the Global Energy Sector, laid out how across the globe different sectors would need to change to meet the 2050 net zero emissions target, including ramping up renewable energy supplies such as solar and wind power. The Report highlighted the need to ensure fair energy costs for consumers, transitioning jobs to maintain employment opportunities, replacing the internal combustion engine with electric vehicles etc. At the same time it was equally forthright in stating that polluting energy sources would have to be phased out, referencing coal (to be phased out first) oil and gas – and the Report was clear:
No new oil and gas!
“Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required. The unwavering policy focus on climate change in the net zero pathway results in a sharp decline in fossil fuel demand, meaning that the focus for oil and gas producers switches entirely to output – and emissions reductions – from the operation of existing assets.” https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
As time has passed – and despite both the promises and the actual actions taken by nations – the rate at which the climate is changing has not slowed but accelerated.
In October 2023 an international group of scientists wrote: “We are afraid of the uncharted territory that we have now entered.” Their writing in the journal Biosciences, was reported by the Forbes magazine: “As scientists, we are increasingly being asked to tell the public the truth about the crises we face in simple and direct terms. The truth is that we are shocked by the ferocity of the extreme weather events in 2023.”
In January 2024 the World Economic Forum produced its Global Risk Report.
“Nature and climate risks are getting the attention they deserve — that’s a positive first step in addressing some of the greatest challenges that we, as a global community, face. Just this week, scientists announced that temperatures in 2023 reached 1.48°C above preindustrial averages, with the 1.5°C threshold that takes the Earth into an unsafe operating space likely to be breached in the next 12 months.
“The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 named three key climate issues as critical challenges facing humanity: Extreme weather events, critical change to Earth systems — which is a new entrant this year — and biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse….
“There is no doubt that the challenge is great — it is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever or will ever face. The good news: the solutions are available to us.
“The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems…
“Given the nature of the existential threat, it is essential to pair a realistic view of risks alongside hope and optimism. Too much focus on the risks will leave humans with a trauma response of fight, flight, freeze and fold – leading to ecoanxiety and climate grief. These responses induce inaction and serve to propel the risk rather than mitigate it. On the other hand, an overly optimistic view that is reliant on technological fixes further down the line is also unhelpful, as decision-makers kick the can down the proverbial road.
“What is needed is a mindset that recognises the full scale of the climate risk, whilst maintaining the optimism that we can and will respond in a way to avoid and mitigate the worst risks from occurring.”
Their report also noted: “The good news: the solutions are available to us. The priority solution is faster emissions reduction and credible steps by all actors in our economic system to accelerate the speed and scale of a clean transition. Human emissions is the swiftest lever to postpone or avoid critical changes to Earth systems.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/climate-risks-are-finally-front-and-centre-of-the-global-consciousness/
In July 2024 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced its Global Foresight Report. This is a report that aims to understand and predict those things that can or will disrupt planetary health and human wellbeing. The Executive Summary provides the following insights.
“Through the process, it has become clear that the world is facing a different context than it faces even ten years ago. Some of the issues are the same, but the rapid rate of change combined with technological developments, more frequent and devastating disasters and an increasingly turbulent geopolitical landscape, has resulted in a new operating context, where any country can be thrown off course more easily and more often.
“The world is already on the verge of what may be termed ‘polycrisis’ – where global crises are not just amplifying and accelerating but also appear to be synchronising. The triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste is feeding into human crises such as conflict for territory and resources, displacement and deteriorating health.
“The speed of change is staggering….
“The good news is that just as the impact of multiple crises is compounded when they are linked, so are the solutions …Key to a better future is a focus on inter generational equity and a new social contract reinforcing shared values that unite us rather than divide us. A new social contract would involve the global community pursuing transformative change across technological, economic and social factors and paradigms and collective goals.” https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/45915/English-Executive-Summary-Foresight-Report.pdf?sequence=8
For scientists and for those looking at the climate crisis from a global perspective, it is clear that climate change does present us with an existential threat. However looking at the responses from governments and business concerns – that is actual responses not just words and promises – climate change is not an existential threat. It is not even an urgent priority. Economic growth (measured by the unhelpful metric of gross domestic product), the exploiting of every last drop of oil and gas, increasing dividends, ensuring profits for banks, routes for airlines, roads for car drivers, and the maintenance of industrial farming and livestock production, all take precedence.
If global bodies are saying ‘existential threat’ but government and industry are saying ‘business as usual’ then we should not be surprised if most people think that the climate change is an important global issue but not an issue that should have any impact on their daily life. So governments and industries continue to say ‘Yes we will make change’ to the global bodies whilst continuing to say to the consumers ‘No don’t worry, we’ll delay these changes till a later date’.
One body that monitors the progress being taken by nations is the Climate Action Tracker.
“The Climate Action Tracker is an independent scientific project that tracks government climate action and measures it against the globally agreed Paris Agreement aim of “holding warming well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.” https://climateactiontracker.org/
Their assessment shows that gap between where we should be and where we are.
The State of Nature report 2023 states: “The UK, like most other countries worldwide, has seen significant loss of its plants, animals and fungi. The data from State of Nature cover, at most, 50 years but this follows on from centuries of habitat loss, development and persecution. As a result, the UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth.”(1) This includes a 54% loss in the distribution of flowering plants, meaning more than half of the land is less rich in biodiversity.
Yet a rich biodiverse environment is better able to cope with and tackle the causes of climate change. (2)
The Green Tau 