Why There’s Still Hope in the midst of the Doom and Gloom

The most severe warning yet issued by the leading global authority on climate change to global leaders this week was issued by the International Panel on Climate Change. Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General, describes the report from the International Panel on Climate Change as “an atlas human suffering and a damning accusation of failed climate leadership,” as people all over the globe are “getting clobbered” by climate change.

The report is based on a trio of sobering new researches that have been released in recent weeks and project an accelerated rise in Sea levelsA global crisis in Wildfires are burgeoning, and wildly underestimated the emissions of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gases that is much more potent than carbon, but has a shorter life span.

The IPCC report reveals that there is a window of opportunity to stop the chaos and provides specific strategies for dealing with the worst effects. Scientists offer some suggestions, however. A glimmer of hopeIt is still possible to stop global warming from happening.

Next Avenue asked noted climate scientist Michael Mannto be the harbinger good news, for an improvement. Mann, 54 (he refers to himself as a “late Gen Xer”), directs Penn State University’s Earth Systems Science Center and is a member of prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

He is credited with bringing climate to the public’s attention through his legendary contributions. “Hokeystick curve”A graphic illustration of the effects of global warming since medieval time. Al Gore used this image to create the memorable stepladder scene for his 2006 documentary. An Inconvenient Truth. 

Mann recently co-authored a perspective piece for the Washington Post, in which he says we could halt the global heating process in more like three to five years and why the hope inspired by this knowledge is a critical first step in holding global heating to 1.5º C (2.7º F), the ceiling for avoiding the most dire consequences. The Earth has already warmed 1.1º C since pre-industrial times.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.

The Most Recent Studies on Climate Change

Next Avenue: Which road are you on right now, with an overheated planet?

Mann: We’re anywhere between three and five degrees Celsius–like five to nine degrees Fahrenheit–warming of the planet, twice that much in the Arctic because of the amplifying effects of melting. We are heading towards what can reasonably been called disaster, if we continue to do business as usual.

You can try it out.

Three degrees Celsius–five degrees Fahrenheit–that’s a world, first of all, where CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels are so high that we’ll see a destruction of the world’s coral reef systems through a combination of coral bleaching and ocean acidification. We will see more extreme weather events. We will not only limit sea level rise to meters, but to feet, which is enough to flood major cities. The coasts of the world. Because of uncertainty in ice-sheet dynamics, how quickly ice sheets can collapse after they are heated up, it is difficult to predict how fast that would happen.

You still claim that there is good news, which I find quite surprising. Since more than a decade, media has been reporting that the planet will continue to warm even if all greenhouse gasses are stopped. Now, you are telling us that if we reduce warming emissions, we can stop the warming abruptly.

There is warming, but it is being offset by something else. We are putting carbon into the atmosphere, and the Earth system determines what happens. We know that around half of the carbon in the atmosphere is not retained; it is taken up by the seas and plants, which we call the terrestrial biosphere.

We have to turn it off. We must reduce carbon emissions to zero. We must bring them down to zero by the mid-century mark, if you do the math. Then there will be no warming if we achieve zero emissions by 2050. This aspect of science has taken several decades to mature.

[Editor’s Note: Stopping the warming is different from stopping all of its effects, some of which, like melting glaciers and rising sea levels, are likely to continue for decades, regardless.] 

You state that science has been developing for some time to support this reversal. Why is it important to have this information available now?

I believe there is so much doom right now. I think some of that is likely to be exacerbated by the current health crisis. We feel like everything is crumbling around us, as if we’ve lived in a dystopia. I believe that there is a tendency for climate hopelessness to be mixed in with the overall feeling of despair. 

But despair and doom are not the best things for engagement. It leads to disengagement. According to the latest research, righteous anger is actually more common than you might think. DoesEngagement leads to engagement When you look at youth climate movement, what do you see? Greta Thunberg. There is a lot of righteous anger there, and that can be very mobilizing.

You have read a lot of information about how we can reduce our emissions, but this could be distracting from the important work. How do you do this?

Individual action is not enough to solve the problem. We need systemic changes. We need policies to collectively move us in the right direction. We want everyone to make climate-friendly decisions, not just those who are aware of the climate crisis and care about it. 

Market signals are the best way to do this. [e.g.] incentivizing clean energy. It shouldn’t cost more to get electricity from sources that aren’t harmful to the environment. We provide massive subsidies to fossil fuels but not the same amount of subsidies for renewable electricity.

It’s the excessive emphasis, the overwhelming tendency talk about plastic straws (encouraging livestock product) and not traveling or having children. This is an industry tactic. It’s an old playbook that was used to this effect. [Big]Tobacco, by gun lobby, and by the beverage industry: The whole idea of deflection.

Individual action is a part of it. We shouldAll of us do these things, right? I mean, why not? NotIt will save us money, make it easier for us to live healthier, and help us set an example for other people. While we feel better about ourselves, we must also recognize that only individuals like us can make the necessary changes to reduce climate change. This delicate balance is what we need.

Two of the five books that you have written have described climate policy as a war, including your latest book, “The New Climate War.” But According to polls,Most people recognize climate threats now and support reducing emissions. Where is the front line in this war?

We are still facing this massive effort by vested interest to cloud the public discussion over the climate crisis, and to ultimately stop us from making the necessary changes if we want to avoid catastrophic warming of our planet. 

So, to the extent that bad actors are intentionally blocking this effort at addressing the greatest challenge we face, as a civilization to date, I say, “War on Climate Action.” This is a strong wording. But I believe that you must call out bad actors. As I said in “The New Climate,” War” is the quickest way to lose a battle is to refuse recognition that you are in one.

Would you consider yourself to be a climate optimist after all of this?

It’s a daunting task. We must reduce carbon emissions by 50% within the next decade, and get them to zero by midcentury. Can we do this? Yeah. Technology is available to us all. This is where I am guilty. like Bill Gates, to communicate this idea that we need new tech for this.

You must continue fighting the good fight, even if you lose. We fight on regardless of the chance of success. 

I can vouch for the science that there is still hope to avoid the worst impacts. It would be so tragic if the moment we need to act is when we fall into despair and doom, it would be so tragic.

You can read it entire reportWorking Group II of the IPCC, which examines impacts, vulnerabilities, as well as potential strategies to adapt for changes already occurring.

Craig Miller A veteran journalist based near New York’s northern Catskills, he is an excellent choice. His reporting focuses on climate science and policy as well as energy and the environment. Miller founded and edited the award-winning Climate Watch multimedia project for KQED in San Francisco in 2008. He was science editor until August 2019. He’s also a proud member of his local volunteer fire department.
 Read More