Which path will humanity choose to follow?

The delay by governments in taking action on climate change has been too long. It is unlikely that incremental changes to energy and food production will be enough to create a climate resilient future. New analysisScientists around the globe warn.

The world is already experiencing the negative effects of climate change. These include extreme storms, heat waves, and other changes that have pushed certain natural and human systems beyond their limits. As the temperatures rise, there will be a transformation in how people live on Earth. Either countries can plan their transformations or face the chaotic, often destructive changes that will be imposed on them by the changing climate.

I’m one of the authors of the climate impacts and adaptation report, released Feb. 28, 2022, as part of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report. The increasing alarm in these reports, which review the latest research every six or seven years, echoes what I’ve seen over years of work In international development and climate changes.

Climate change is having a devastating effect on our world today

Since 1890, global temperatures have risen by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 F). This warming has already wrought significant environmental changes.

Many areas have seen heat waves and severe downpours become more severe. These impacts have already led to water shortages and complex food price rises. They can also increase health risks for low-income communities and other vulnerable populations. can’t afford coolingWhen temperatures rise.

Climate models show These effects will get worse in a warming future as people continue releasing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use, agriculture and other activities, compromising humanity’s ability to adapt.

If people are unable or unwilling to adapt, their lives will be impacted in expensive and reactive ways. Research shows that small islands will see their land disappear if the temperature rises above 1.5 C (2.7 F) in comparison to preindustrial times. Climate change will impact where their residents live, how they earn a living, and even the way they live.

Rising temperatures and more Breadbaskets are subject to frequent droughts of the global food system, such as the American Midwest or Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, will compromise harvests. These events can cause price spikes and radiating shortages in different crops and places, resulting in a tightly interconnected global food system.

These spikes are not common in the United States. However, they can resemble inflation-related price increases. For Americans most at risk, these increases can lead to food insecurity and increased pressure on social safety nets. These spikes can cause severe damage in less-developed parts of the globe. food crises, social unrestPolitical instability.

The future warming impacts will have a negative impact on society’s ability to achieve goals like ending poverty and malnutrition both in the United States as well as abroad.

Continue reading:
A quick guide to climate change jargon – what experts mean by adaptation, carbon neutral and 6 other key terms

Companies, individuals and governments can reduce risks

These risks are not unavoidable.

Individuals, communities, and countries can recognize the need to transform. They can also identify what they want and what they don’t want to change. They can ask which people will be most affected by these transformations and plan for and manage them, making a resilient climate future possible for as many people as possible. This goes beyond providing material safety. It changes people’s relationship with each other and the environment.

There are many examples of transformational adaptations to climate change that are emerging. These examples show what is possible.

In Regenerative agriculture is being adopted by farmers in AustraliaThese practices help to store more carbon in soil. This has led to soil health improvements. This allowed farmers to protect their fields against flooding and drought. They became more ecologically aware and collaborative, and were able to set higher goals for their farming beyond income.

Preservation vs. Transformation: A false choice

The slow global response to climate changes so far has made it clear that this is fundamentally a problem of people’s motivations.

Some politicians and others advocate false choices between expensive adaptation or the status quo. But Arguments that mitigating the effects of climate change are too expensiveIt is difficult to believe that This losing battle is what people pay forWe must all fight against the transformative effects of climate change.

The IPCC report states that East AfricaThe annual economic impact of climate changes on one crop, maize was estimated at US$1billion. This is more than the amount these countries and the international community spend on agricultural aid and support for farmers. Their production is part and parcel of the global food system which shapes food prices worldwide. It’s one example of how Already, adaptation is being paid for by humanity, often in indirect ways.

The status quo is a great way to avoid the difficult politics of deciding which aspects of our current lives and societies should be preserved and which should be changed. Moving from cars to public transport can make it easier for low-income people to access jobs and other amenities. Housing near transportation can be expensive. A seawall could protect properties along the coast, but it could also shift erosion to communities with less resources.

The decisions of countries and communities about how to transform and the outcomes will be affected greatly by who is allowed to participate in these decisions. Their outcomes will have profound implications for justice and equity.

Reactive approaches hide the accumulating costs

But the status quo isn’t cheap in the long run, and studies show that the harm from more drastic warming would be extensive.

The Urban Climate Change Research Network is an international consortium of scientists that estimates that there are approximately 1.8 million people living in cities. Current cost of adaptation for urban areasThe annual costs of inaction are between $64 billion billion and $80 trillion each year. The same study found that the annual costs associated with inaction are likely 10 times greater by midcentury. The fewer options for transformation that countries have, the longer they wait to address climate change.

There is no choice between costly transformation and a low-cost status quo. The difference lies in the way people will pay, how they pay and how often. If we don’t make the right choices, we may be forced to accept changes that are not in our best interests.

The IPCC assessment makes it clear: Does humanity accept the disastrous status quo? Or do it choose a better future and grab control of the reins?