[ad_1]
Australia is struggling with Record levels of rain and floodingEight people have been killed in the incident. This is just one example of extreme weather events becoming more frequent. It is an example of the irreversible damage that climate change is already causing on the planet, and it happens at a very appropriate time. Worse than was anticipated. Even if some countries manage to keep their pledges to limit global warming to 1.5C above preindustrial levels, some consequences are still inevitable. This requires a complete overhaul of the way we tackle the climate emergency. While trying to cut emissions is fundamental, just as much focus is now needed on adapting to the inevitable — while it is still possible.
The report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its stark conclusions, may seem distant doom-mongering when Civilians are being killed today in Russia’s senseless war against Ukraine. Unseen scenes of conflict on European soil since the 20th Century have prompted a similar retrograde call to revive west fossil fuel extraction. Reducing Europe’s energy dependence on Russia will be key over the long term but there ought not to be a dichotomy between security and climate. Governments must now intensify efforts to increase renewable energy in order to safeguard both.
The short-term, however, is a bitter truth. Western countries might be forced to look closer at home in order to survive.They depend on their oil and gas to keep the lights on, and to avoid political and economic instability. This is because many countries have only offered lip service to their energy addiction. If they don’t try to end this addiction over the long-term, it will lead to more geopolitical risk, instability, and ultimately conflict.
Not least this is because 40 per cent of the world’s population, or as many as 3.6bn people, now live in countries that are “highly vulnerable” to climate change, according to The IPCC report. It concluded that even a slight temperature rise could pose significant risks to human life. It is the most vulnerable people living in the poorest countries, which is not surprising. A climate “apartheid” that at the very least could spark mass migration is an all too real prospect. As has been proven true during the pandemic, it is in richer countries’ enlightened self-interest to help others.
This will require money. The IPCC tried to sidestep the issue of “loss and damage” — a politically charged term that implies richer nations should pay poorer ones for the damage wrought by historical emissions. The US has led the charge against climate compensation. This issue will be a hot topic at the next COP summit in Egypt later in the year.
Richer countries must keep the promises they have made. The 2009 promise to channel $100bn in climate finance public and private to poorer countries by 2020 has not been fulfilled. Long-term, doing nothing will only increase costs.
It is important to consider how the money is spent. Climate finance has been overwhelmingly focused on mitigation and not adaptation so far. This has meant attempting to reduce emissions and slow down global warming. As important as this is, financing is required to help people adapt and deal with the dangers they are already facing. This could include bolstering coastal defenses and early warning systems, improving water efficiency in cities and pest control, or rolling out carbon sequestration. These concrete steps should now be taken before it is too late.
Climate Capital
Climate change meets politics, markets, business. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Learn more about our science-based goals here
