An Evening with the IPCC

The numbers chapter, the climate justice chapter and the what’s working chapter

2019-05-12

By Rob Delves, Green Issue Co-editor

Jatin Kala, Petra Tschakert and Peter Newman were lead authors on three different chapters of the October 2018 IPCC Report, which had a strong focus on analysing the crucial differences between staying below 1.5 degrees compared to 2 degrees global warming. They have presented their findings at several forums around Perth, and I attended the South Perth event on March 21. I took five pages of notes ‒ and certainly missed several gems. However, in the spirit of aiming for 1.5 rather than 2.0, I will try to deliver the very lowest limit to my word emissions.

The Numbers Man: why 1.5 matters

Jatan Kala hit us with the stats, mostly outlining the best research on how much 1.5 matters. Short, non-maths answer – one hell of a lot. The probabilities of all the nasties soar once 1.5 is breached (which will happen earlier than 2040 on current projections). For example, in Australia there’s a 57% chance of a big angry summer every year at 1.5, but this probability rises to 77% at 2.0. To achieve 1.5 the world has to phase out carbon emissions super-fast. When do we need to start? 30 years ago - smarty pants me smugly saw that answer coming, as I’m sure all Greens did. 

The Climate Justice Woman: the importance of a Just Transition

Petra Tschakert was a lead author of chapter 5 and most of us agreed that her presentation was the most compelling, as it took us way beyond our local Australian perspective to demand a global social justice challenge. This chapter is about the human impacts and in particular how some humans will be impacted more than others. 

Petra used plain English rather than mathematical probabilities to explain the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees warming: severe, widespread impacts with 1.5 versus irreversible damage with 2.0. At times she did get into the maths. The research suggests huge reductions in the number of people affected by various impacts if we can hold to 1.5: for example, rising seas will impact 10 million fewer, water scarcity impacts at least 50 million fewer (possibly 100 million).

One of the key arguments of chapter 5 is that the unprecedented scale of action required to transition to a safe climate must also be a Just Transition. Climate change action must include huge reductions in the dangerous levels of inequality in the world, perhaps best summed up in the recent Oxfam report that showed how the richest 26 people had a net worth equal to that of the poorest half, who live on less than $5.50 a day – all 3.8 billion of them.

One important implication of acknowledging their right to lift their living standards to attain the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is that the wealthy nations must do most of the work in reducing carbon emissions. Now we get to the part where political pressure meant the team writing this chapter couldn’t publish certain data – the data comparing the pledges made by wealthy nations compared to what the science demands. Petra showed us these graphs. Two (non-) surprises: no country’s pledge was even close and Australia’s was even less close than most. When Petra then showed the bar graph of current pledges compared to what the IPCC describe as “carbon reductions at progressive extra levels” (i.e.: reductions that go slightly beyond the country’s equitable shares), it was like comparing a skyscraper to a two storey house to – or in Australia’s case a  partly demolished single storey house.

The Action Man: What’s working (and what’s not)

Petra’s presentation didn’t exactly leave us optimistically upbeat about what our leaders are doing, but then, along came Peter! Our very own Scientist of the Year was a lead author of Chapter 4: Decoupling and Disruption. 

I must confess to years of pessimism about the possibilities of decoupling: it seemed to me that every time there was a tech breakthrough, its environmental gains would be swamped by increased consumption. For example, lower-emissions petrol resulted in people buying bigger guzzlers and driving further each year, resulting in higher emission totals. However, Peter Newman produced evidence that economic growth has been achieved with lower total emissions since 1990 – and the decoupling is accelerating. Denmark is a standout example, with wind power a key driver of decoupling. Since 1990 its wealth has increased by 60%, while total emissions are way down. But there’s an important footnote: “Total emissions are way down, BUT NOT WAY DOWN ENOUGH.”

So, what’s working? Three big things. Firstly the disruptive technological trio of wind-solar-batteries are raging through the electricity generation market. Secondly, the transition to electric transport systems, especially electric vehicles, is unstoppable almost everywhere (except maybe Australia, where it’s barely started!). Thirdly, cities are competing against each other to be the first to achieve zero carbon ‒ and getting there at a pleasing speed ‒  regardless of what their national government is doing, or not doing.

And what’s not working? Firstly, a worrying lack of progress in finding low emissions fuels for trucks, buses, ships and planes. Secondly, land clearing rates are still dangerously high, with the Amazon a major concern. Finally, the LNG industry is very slow to change – and still promotes itself as the “lowish emissions” transition fuel. This is wrong on two fronts: first, there’s nothing lowish about the emissions from using gas, and second, solar is already proving to be the superior energy transition source. 

Peter Newman ended by identifying two wicked problems. The first is particularly acute for WA: How to wean our economy off its addiction to huge gas projects. The second is a communication problem: how to convey the urgency of our climate crisis without lurching towards a dictatorial top-down search for solutions. 

Petra Tschakert’s message is that climate solutions demand social justice: Peter Newman’s message is that climate solutions demand grassroots democracy.

Header photo: Australian average temperature anomalies 1910-2018. Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology

 [Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]