Australia is grappling with record levels of rain and flooding that have killed eight people so far. It is just one more example of extreme weather events that are becoming far more frequent. In grimly apt timing, it underscores the point of a UN report this week that laid bare the irreversible damage climate change is already wreaking on the planet: it is worse than was predicted. Even if, by some miracle, countries abide by pledges to keep global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, some consequences are now unavoidable. That requires a sea change in tackling the climate emergency. While trying to cut emissions is fundamental, just as much focus is now needed on adapting to the inevitable — while it is still possible.
The report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its stark conclusions, may seem distant doom-mongering when civilians are being killed today in Russia’s senseless war against Ukraine. Scenes of conflict on European soil not seen since the 20th century have ushered in equally retrograde calls to revive fossil fuel extraction in the west. Reducing Europe’s energy dependence on Russia will be key over the long term but there ought not to be a dichotomy between security and climate. To safeguard both, governments must now redouble efforts to boost renewable energy.
In the short term, the unpalatable truth is that western countries may be forced to look closer to home for their oil and gas just to keep the lights on and avoid political and economic instability. But this is precisely because little more than lip service has been paid by many countries to weaning themselves off their dirty energy habit. More geopolitical risk, more instability and ultimately more conflict is inevitable if they do not try to break this addiction in the longer term.
Not least this is because 40 per cent of the world’s population, or as many as 3.6bn people, now live in countries that are “highly vulnerable” to climate change, according to the IPCC report. It concludes that just a small temperature rise could trigger significant risks to life. Unsurprisingly, it is people in the very poorest countries that are most vulnerable. A climate “apartheid” that at the very least could spark mass migration is an all too real prospect. As has been proven true during the pandemic, it is in richer countries’ enlightened self-interest to help others.
This will take money. The IPCC tried to sidestep the issue of “loss and damage” — a politically charged term that implies richer nations should pay poorer ones for the damage wrought by historical emissions. Countries led by the US have pushed hard against the concept of climate compensation, and the issue is forecast to be a flashpoint of negotiations during the next COP summit in Egypt later this year.
Regardless, richer countries need to keep promises already made. A 2009 pledge to channel $100bn in both public and private climate finance to poorer nations by 2020 still has not fully materialised. Doing nothing will only push up costs in the long run.
But how money is spent is also key. Climate finance to date has overwhelmingly focused on mitigation rather than adaptation, as the jargon has it. This has meant trying to cut emissions and curb the rate of global warming. As crucial as that still is, finance is needed to help populations adapt to the dangers they already face. That could be in bolstering coastal defences and early warning systems, in improving water efficiency in cities, in better pest control or in rolling out carbon sequestration and storage. These concrete steps should be taken now, before it is too late.
Source: Economy - ft.com
