Re-shaping Our Climate Change Response

The Glasgow Climate Change Conference, COP26, is over and based upon the results contained within the Glasgow Climate Pact, CMA.3 I should have a great deal of confidence world leaders have struck a deal to rapidly, strongly and seriously with a great amount of conviction address rising green house gas (GHG) emissions, the cause of climate change. Unfortunately my confidence level is quite low. Let me explain, but I also urge you to review as many of the documents you can associated with Kyoto, Paris and now Glasgow to come to your own conclusions.

My principle concerns with the Pact emanate from the choice of a specific word, with some qualifications expressed and with the non-specific style of presentation. I also note Glasgow was the 26th Conference of the Parties and the shortfall grows between rising GHG levels, temperatures and extreme weather events and comprehensive action required, designed and guaranteed to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Time and the carbon budget is running out, an alarm bell expressed in the Pact: “3. Expresses alarm and utmost concern that human activities have caused around 1.1 °C of warming to date, that impacts are already being felt in every region, and that carbon budgets consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal are now small and being rapidly depleted.” Other sources and comments suggest because of the GHGs already in the pipeline the 1.5ºC goal will be missed and indeed some suggest the 2ºC target is also in jeopardy because globally not enough has been accomplished to stem the tide of increasing GHGs, temperatures and the accompanying extremes. Climate Action Tracker has reviewed targets, policies, pledges and actions of 140 countries and confirms: “There remains a substantial gap between what governments have promised to do and the total level of actions they have undertaken to date. Furthermore, both the current policy and pledge trajectories lie well above emissions pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal.” In other words globally the Paris Agreement targets ratified in Glasgow will not likely be met. Indeed, The Glasgow Pact is in agreement with the Tracker analysis when it states: “26. Notes with serious concern the synthesis report on nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement,4 according to which the aggregate greenhouse gas emission level, taking into account implementation of all submitted nationally determined contributions is estimated to be 13.7 per cent above the 2010 level in 2030.” 

Words, the ideas contained within them and the ways in which they are employed combine to evoke and express meaning. Given the “utmost concern” noted in the previous paragraph, the Pact, one would expect, should follow on with very strong words employed to direct efforts toward achieving the Paris goals regarding global temperature increases. Instead the Pact provides, I suggest, a weak response to the “utmost concern” and noted goals by using the word “mitigate” and by preparing a document presentation which is not easy to navigate through. Targets and policies are scattered in the Pact (referencing the Paris Agreement), but no agenda / formula / designed process is set out in detail to guide and mandate actions to achieve stated goals concerning GHGs and temperature increases. Rather, the document states in general terms what is required supported by identified considerations to be taken into account. A great deal will be left to the interpretation of Parties and by their capacities and identified responsibilities to act along with their abilities to encourage all sectors to be involved to achieve necessary goals.

There are three core initiatives set out in the Pact based upon the findings and reports from science and the Parties to the conference: mitigation, adaptation and financing global, party and technology initiatives. Mitigation is the weak link and it has a profound affect upon the thinking required and efforts to meet the Paris goals. To mitigate is to make less severe, serious or painful (Oxford Languages). Other similar words include: alleviate, reduce, diminish, lessen, weaken, lighten, attenuate. These are all fine words, but they do not express the urgency required to prevent, to stop climate change in its tracks. The problem with mitigation is it is highly degree dependent. With the word mitigation a weaker message is sent, the urgency is downplayed and uncertainty about what is required prevails. Clarity of purpose and required action is absent and importantly, crucially, it allows for Parties to respond with varying degrees of commitment in this document hi-lighted by a significant qualification referencing Party “equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.” In short with the use of the word mitigate instead of a much stronger phrase such as ‘immediately prevent’, the Pact confuses thinking and misses an opportunity to emphasize what is really required by when. 

Going forward the proof of commitment to stop climate change will be lodged in the detailed responses by the Parties to the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Pact. In this regard pulling on the reins of climate change will have to be a concerted global effort. In this notion  significant points need to be made which underscore expected response variability: 1. NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) will be highly variable; 2. A minority of Parties are responsible for the vast majority of GHGs and the consequential climate warming; 3. No firm global schedule (according to science, technology and political findings and possibilities) along the lines of critical path planning has been produced to realize GHG reduction; 4. Plans for accommodation of migration due to climate change is clearly missing in action; 5. The world seems to be sitting on the sidelines watching with interest to see how the consequences of climate change will unfold; 6. Financial contributions from the wealthy Parties to the global effort to reduce GHGs and to help countries adapt has lagged behind requirements; 7. So far the hard decisions concerning abandonment of fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy sources, such as the sun, have not been made to the extent required; 8. There are many social / cultural differences evoking different responses; and 9. The global imminent and increasing crises associated with climate change, while happening to varying degrees in different parts of this world, have not reached comprehensive levels everywhere allowing for much complacency to prevail.

The concept of mitigation allows for too much slack in our response to climate change. A piecemeal, unstructured response is not enough and yet that is exactly what mitigation in this instance encourages. The word ‘prevent’ is nowhere to be found.

In the Glasgow Pact a phrase change caused some controversy among the Parties and in the media. The phrase concerned the use of coal and was changed at the last moment from “phasing out” to “phasing down”. No question, there is quite a difference between ‘out’ and ‘down’, but I suggest the real issue lies with the word ‘phasing’ and an apparent lack of robust scheduling. Tackling climate change by mitigation allows for an inconsistent response globally including use of the concept phasing to be defined and scheduled at the whim of Parties involved.

There are no straight lines in climate change and weather systems and lag times are at best uncertain. Carbon sinks (oceans, soils, trees) have and continue, so far, to prevent exponential CO2 accumulation in our atmosphere, but some science suggests saturation is a distinct possibility. Even so, the GHG and temperature levels have been continuously rising, incrementally, no doubt insidiously. All the weather extremes predicted are now happening.

Let me try to paint a picture through analogy of what I think has happened and could happen and why I suggest mitigation is an inadequate response. Imagine a bobsled run in a landscape with no apparent bottom. At the top of the run stretch out the relatively flat beginning in effect requiring a longer period of input from humanity to get the sled moving. Without the pushing input the sled would slide to a halt. Subtle as it has been, at some point the flat begins to slope down causing and allowing the sled to move on its own. Speed at this stage is important because as the sled enters onto the slope the amount of speed will determine how quickly additional speed is acquired. Passengers are soon confronted with the twists and turns typical of a bobsled run. As speed increases the G-forces and noise levels rise. The slope has now morphed into an overall convex shape and passengers can no longer see beyond the curvature or around the twists and turns. They do not know what is in store for them as speed increases. Some begin to put out their hands in an ill-fated attempt to slow and stop the sled, the mitigation factor. Successful completion of the  downward journey is apparently now solely in the hands of the sled drivers, as there are more than one. Together the slope and the built inertia have combined to make stopping exceedingly difficult. There are now only two options: the drivers continue to successfully maneuver the sled through the twists and turns to the end somewhere in the abyss ahead, a very different place from where they started or anchors and drags can be successfully assembled and deployed sufficiently to slow and eventually stop the sled, the prevention factor. Either way the tasks are daunting and the way back up the slope will be hopeless in the short-term. Adapting to the environments in the abyss or part way down the slope will indeed be the only reasonable and achievable options.

If climate change has not already hit the convex slope, humanity will ensure it happens soon with continued emissions and a lack of preventative measures set out in a rigid schedule of transition off carbon and other GHGs. Without adequate anchors and drags the speed of climate change will increase. 

On a positive note, Article 28 of the Pact in the section on mitigation may prove to be the most important proposal in the Pact. It states: “Decides to establish a work programme to urgently scale-up mitigation ambition and implementation during the critical decade of the 2020s.” While no details were presented, if the content, framework and requirements so necessary are included, then a more rigorous effort can be realized. To that end the work programme should develop a catalogue of preventive actions for all Parties to work with and toward, a check list of things to do to achieve change / transition and to note accomplishments achieved (common global, specific regional) along with a critical path to goals with review milestones. This would also help direct international financial support from Parties to Parties. It would clarify what Parties are doing or not doing and provide incentive through comparison with other Parties.

Not for a moment, I suggest, the efforts to date at and through the U.N. are completely inadequate. Indeed, it has been through the U.N. that climate change is now recognized as a major issue requiring attention. Rather the Parties are at fault for not fully accepting the findings and working without reservation to stop climate change. From that U.N. initiative a complex body of information has been compiled and frameworks for encouraging action have been designed and employed, but they do not go far enough and they are not mandatory and tightly scheduled. They mitigate while much more is required to immediately prevent.