(Source: GreenBiz.com/ Shutterstock)
Much of climate policy and politics attempts to answer the question of what is the ‘safest level’ of carbon in the atmosphere that is sustainable for planet earth and human civilization. The political decision has been agreed to as 2°C by the world’s leaders under the Paris Accord with the aspirational target at 1.5°C. But deciding what is an acceptable ‘level of risk’ is often a power play. For it must be asked whose level of ‘risk’ threshold are we talking about? Or rather, who faces the disproportionate share of the climate risks ahead?
Climate science tells us about the complexities of the climate system and how the increase in the earth’s temperature from the ‘greenhouse effect’ is straining our earth system (Emanuel, 2020). This is primarily from the burning of fossil fuels into the atmosphere from human development, including oil, coal and gas over the last 100+ years, which together have contributed to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Emanuel, 2020; Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021; Stocker, et al., 2013). For example, “human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years” (Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021, pg. 8 &10). This has led to widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021). The impacts of which are felt across all regions of the world, including here in Canada with higher frequency of extreme weather events like wildfires, reduction in snow and ice cover, freshwater availability, as well as sea level rise and ocean acidification, all to be further discussed below (Bush, et al., 2019; Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021).
Yet the conundrum is that while climate change will affect us all, it will not affect us all equally. The burden of climate-risks will disproportionately impact the most marginalized peoples, primarily in the Global South, who are often the least responsible for the rise in emissions and have the least ability to adapt (Boyd, 2019). While those most responsible for the rise in emissions, such as the Global North and particularly the wealthy, have the greatest ability to adapt to the changes ahead (Ibid.). According to the UN Human Rights Council, “developing countries will bear an estimated 75-80 per cent of the costs of climate change” (Alston, 2019, pg. 4). Climate related risks include impacts to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, economic growth and more (Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2018). Furthermore, climate change could unravel 50 years of progress in human rights development (Alston, 2019).
In order to reduce the harm and prioritize equity as part of our climate solutions, the goal must be to limit warming to 1.5°C. This limit is what many of the poorest and most marginalized countries have been calling for at the international climate summits (called the Conference of the Parties) for over a decade. It is also a similar message or narrative that is coming out of the recent climate scenarios from the world’s leading climate scientists. Exploring the climate scenarios of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), this limit of 1.5°C is most associated with the scenario labelled SSP1-1.9 (Hausfather, 2018; Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021). This scenario set is used in the first recently released sixth assessment report (AR6), first installment by the IPCC, in combination with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) of the associated radiative forcing projected to occur in each scenario (measured by W/m2) (Hausfather, 2018; Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021; Murdock & Pond, 2021). For example, SSP1-1.9 describes a socio-economic pathway of ‘a world of sustainability-focused growth and equity’ whereby emissions peak mid-century (between 2040 and 2060) and result in 3°C to 3.5°C of warming by the end of the century (Hausfather, 2018). This is the scenario most closely aligned with stabilizing our planet by mid century and entering a ‘new normal’ of warming by the end of the century, as stated by Trevor Murdock in reference to RCP2.6, which is similar to SSP1-1.9 in terms of a high mitigation scenario (Murdock, 2019).
Since human behavior is the most difficult to predict but determines the amount of future emissions, these varying scenarios thus plot different trajectories humanity may take in our climate future irrespective of climate policies (Bush, 2019; Hausfather, 2018). The five SSP narratives include: SSP1 of ‘taking the green road,’ mentioned above, with sustainable growth and equality; SSP2 with a ‘middle of the road’ approach in which we more or less maintain current trends; SSP3 of a ‘rocky road’ with resurgent nationalism; SSP4 with a ‘divided road’ of heightening inequality; while lastly, SSP5 is a ‘fossil fuel road’ where their world ramps up on our dependency of fossil fuels (Hausfather, 2018). Each scenario offers varying degrees of warming that raise temperatures exponentially higher than the SSP1-1.9 scenario above. Yet it should be noted that all scenarios that keep warming below 2°C include unproven technologies like negative emission of carbon capture and storage, with their degree of usage varying by scenario (Hausfather, 2018).
Returning back to the question ‘who’s level of risk’ are we deciding? There seems to be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the game of ‘climate risk.’ When it comes to an ‘acceptable’ level of risk at the global level, often mitigation goals at international climate summits seem to forget the significant difference that each additional half a degree of warming brings (0.5°C) (Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021). The 1.5ºC scenario already creates a challenging world ahead, with British Columbia reaching 6°C by the end of the century and the current hot summers of the province becoming the cold years (Murdock, 2019). However, the 2°C target would have a greater degree of impact on food security, water supply, health, migration and displacement, economic growth and national security (Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2018). For example, in a 2°C warming world, there could be as much as 100 to 400 million people going hungry each year along with 1 to 2 billion people having poor or inadequate water supply (Alston, 2019).
Hence, planning for a 1.5°C warming world, in terms of mitigation and adaptation, is an approach that generally puts equity as part of the solutions for climate change. For in this scenario, we are taking rapid and widespread changes across almost every sector of society in terms of both mitigation and adaptation, with deep reductions to reach the low emissions scenario, reaching net zero emissions as soon as possible and adaptation planning as preventative and not solely reactionary (Bush, et al., 2019; Masson-Delmotte, et al., 2021; Murdock, 2019). This kind of approach ensures the climate risks are distributed more equitably across society (Murdock & Pond, 2021). Therefore, in assessing our collective risk tolerance with the climate crisis, we ought to stop gambling with our future on optimistic bets such as a 2°C political target, and planning with equity in mind for the sake of each other and the stabilization of the only home we have – planet earth.
References:
Alston, P. (2019). Climate Change and Poverty: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (Section III A. Human Rights, B. Poverty, C. Inequality). UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), report to UN Human Rights Council, A/HCR/41/39. Retrieved from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3810720?ln=en
Boyd, D. (2019). Safe Climate: A Report of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment (paragraphs 45-51 and 84-86). UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. Report to the UN General Assembly, A/74/161. Retrieved from: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Environment/SREnvironment/Report.pdf
Bush, E., et al. (2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report (Executive Summary and Chapter 8). Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from: https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapter/8-0/
Emanuel, K. (2020). Climate Science, Risk & Solutions: Climate Knowledge for Everyone (Parts 1-2, PDF). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved from: climateprimer.mit.edu.
Hausfather, Z. (2018). Explainer: How ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’ explore future climate change. Carbon Brief. Retrieved from: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change
Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (2018). Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C (Summary for Policymakers). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In Press. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Summary for Policymakers). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#SPM
Murdock, T. (2019). Module 1, Pt 2 – Using Future Climate Projections (video). Agricultural Climate Adaptation Research Network. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXyhJ0HiyI
Murdock, T. & Pond, E. (2021). Scenarios: Week 4, unit 3 (resource discussion video). Moodle, Royal Roads University. Retrieved from: https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/mod/book/view.php?id=493333&chapterid=207072
Stocker, T.F., et al. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Summary for Policymakers). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf