2018-11-08
By Chris Johansen, GI Co-editor
On 6th October, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a special report detailing the likely consequences of a mean global temperature increase from 1.5°C to 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels. It is now 1°C above those levels with consequences so far in plain view (e.g. disrupted weather patterns, disappearing arctic ice and glaciers, demise of coral reefs, etc.). The 2014 IPCC Synthesis Report emphasized the need to limit global warming to below 2.0°C to prevent runaway catastrophic climate change. This led to the Paris Agreement of 2016 which resolved to stay below 2.0°C but with an aspirational goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C.
The October 2018 IPCC Special Report details the likely consequences of a 2.0°C rise as compared to a 1.5°C rise, assigning probabilities based on the climate models used. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C at some time between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. Substantially worse (mostly greater than 2x worse) at 2.0 vs 1.5°C will be heat waves, forest fires, droughts, heavy rainfall events, sea level rise, disruption of fisheries through ocean temperature rise and acidification, reduced yield potential of major food crops and species loss and extinction. For example, “Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2°C (very high confidence).” Consequent effects on human well-being are not hard to imagine, likely resulting in an explosion of climate refugees and conflict.
But what is the IPCC in any case, to predict this future of doom and gloom? The IPCC is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC has 195 member countries and enlists hundreds of leading scientists in fields in and around climate science to draft their reports, on a voluntary basis. The lead scientists, in turn, recruit additional experts as contributing authors to provide complementary expertise in specific areas, and their output is reviewed by thousands of other experts. For example, the October 2018 IPCC Special Report has 91 lead authors, 133 contributing authors and 1,113 reviewers. Herein lies a problem.
I have for long been involved in writing joint scientific reports, requiring consensus of all authors, and know how difficult this task is, in view of the ornery characteristics of many scientists. To reach consensus usually requires that the final report be a ‘lowest common denominator’ (LCD), to accommodate everyone’s misgivings. Although each subsequent multidisciplinary IPPC report predicts an increasingly severe scenario of doom and gloom, this is inevitably an underestimate of what is likely to happen, a LCD. Manifestations of climate change are happening faster than predicted 5, 10, 20, etc. years ago.
Although the IPCC October Report predicts dire consequences if we cannot dramatically reduce global emissions, various authors point out that this report likely underestimates future scenarios. The IPCC Report does not adequately account for feedback effects, such as the disappearance of arctic sea ice in summer causing more heat to be absorbed by the dark blue ocean rather than being reflected from the white ice. Already, the rate of warming of the arctic is double that of the rest of the planet. With that warming the likelihood of melting of the arctic permafrost is ramped up. The consequence of that is release of trapped methane, which has a global warming potential 56 times greater than carbon dioxide (considered over a 20 year horizon; 21 times over a 100 year horizon). Other catastrophic, essentially irreversible, tipping points include the gradual sliding of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets into the sea, signs of which are already apparent.
Continuing with business as usual will inevitably trigger these and other tipping points, however, it still remains possible to stave them off. This can be done by accelerated dissemination, throughout the world, of the amazing developments in low-cost renewable energy (now generally cheaper than new-build fossil fuel energy) and crash programs of re-forestation.
However, conservative governments in Australia proceed as if the understated, LCD, IPCC reports are outlandishly and unnecessarily alarmist, refusing to formulate any policies that would meaningfully address their content. The iconic image of this is the current PM sitting in parliament caressing and looking swooningly at a lump of coal. Australia’s current environment minister, Melissa Price, rejects the October 2018 IPCC Report out of hand, making the case for the burning of coal into the indefinite future. She must be under the impression that she still holds her previous job, as a mining company lawyer – rather than having a constitutional responsibility to protect Australia’s environment. And the energy minister, Angus Taylor, a renowned anti-wind campaigner – in an energy ministry split from environment as if these entities don’t have anything to do with each other.
Despite the rants of the Murdoch Press and shock jocks, most recent surveys indicate that a majority of the Australian population wants some action on climate change. In view of the continuing dire succession of opinion polls, one would think that the Federal Government would at least pretend to be doing something about climate change to restore their sagging electoral fortunes. But no. Even with the Liberal disaster of the Wentworth by-election, they deny that climate change (along with refugees) was an issue when all pre- and exit polling indicated that it was, along with dumping of Malcolm Turnbull.
How can the conservative politicians of this country persist in their denial of a climate crisis and failure to meaningfully address it? I have three explanations:
1) The most important and most obvious is the hold of the fossil fuel and mining industries over politics in Australia, through direct and indirect political donations and the revolving door between political careers and jobs in those industries.
2) Conservative ideology. A pillar of this is a revulsion of multilateralism, especially where the UN is involved, favouring individual initiative instead. But, in my opinion this ideology has been reinforced by the ‘Al Gore effect’. He won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, along with the IPCC, for his efforts on climate action advocacy, but also inadvertently played a part in reinforcing climate denial among US conservatives, to whom Australian conservatives pay ideological homage. In 1999, as Vice President, Al Gore caste a tie breaking vote in the US Senate to pass a bill requiring increased gun control (background checks on gun purchases). This absolutely infuriated the politically powerful and cashed up National Rifle Association (NRA) who began a vendetta to prevent Al Gore from being elected as President in 2000. The NRA was one of the Republican Party’s biggest donors in that election and played a major role in campaigning against Gore in Florida, the key state where he ultimately lost the election. After that election, when Al Gore focussed on climate activism, the conservatives’ disdain for Gore was still very much palpable, to the extent that they would, as a reflex reaction, counter anything proposed by Gore (similar to Donald Trump’s never-ending vilification of Hillary Clinton). My hypothesis is, if at that time Al Gore had proclaimed that ‘climate science is crap’, then US Republicans and conservatives would have favoured action on climate change! However, climate denial became ever-more ideologically sacred to US conservatives, and this philosophy was duly adopted by their conservative sycophants in Australia.
3) The other explanation is that conservatives who oppose climate action are simply ignorant of the scientific method and how to collect and interpret scientific data. While this may hold some truth for some, I would not think it to be a major reason for their hostility to climate action. I suspect that most Australian conservative politicians, when alone in contemplation, are well aware of the threat of climate change but are trying to delay action on it for reasons 1) and 2) above. This phenomenon is illustrated in the book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway (2010), describing how executives of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries have long known about the adverse effects of their industries on human well-being but established obfuscation and disinformation campaigns to prolong the sale of their products.
On returning to live in Australia in 2006, I was soon attracted to The Greens as it was the only political party, with significant (albeit minor) parliamentary representation, serious about action on climate change. It was a major issue for me having observed climate change getting underway while living in Asia – and the other pillars of The Greens resonated well with me also. Indeed the significant action on climate change initiated by the Gillard Government was largely a result of The Greens being in a balance of power situation. However, as the Australian public is now slowly, according to opinion polls, beginning to see through the obfuscation and disinformation of climate denial, and realize the benefits of converting to renewable energy, are The Greens benefitting from this?
I fear not. For example, climate action was generally considered as a major issue in the Wentworth by-election (except by the Liberals who monumentally lost that election!), but The Greens vote slipped back >6 percentage points. Similarly, The Greens vote slipped in the recent Fremantle by-election, where climate action, along with refugee policy, was one of the main issues differentiating us from Labor (the Liberals opted out of this one!).
Historically, The Greens have championed issues when they were largely electorally unpopular, but have subsequently gained mainstream acceptance (e.g. various forms of environmental protection legislation, opposition to middle east wars, same sex marriage, renewable energy, etc.). But we don’t seem to be reaping the electoral benefits of these changes in public perception. Now that public opinion is shifting in the direction of meaningful climate action, we need to remind the populace of our historical efforts in this regard and clearly make the case that we are the most competent party to be formulating policies to lead us into the future. We need to sharpen our narrative on climate action, to the extent that it better resonates with voters. And we really need to be forceful and definitive in this endeavour as we are not likely to have a balance of power situation after the next Federal election – in view of a looming Labor landslide (as the COALition continues shooting itself in the foot, almost on a daily basis).
Header photo: By cocoparisienne on Creative Commons