X Close

UCL Environment

Home

Just another Blogs.ucl.ac.uk site

Menu

2 degrees or 1.5? Either way it’s the local action that will count

By ucyphaz, on 14 December 2015

Author: Dan Osborn, Professor of Human Ecology, Department of Earth Sciences. Published on 14th December, 2015.

Given that a 2°C rise in global mean temperatures is thought to represent the “threshold” around which point dangerous impacts of climate change would kick in at a global scale; it must be a relief to risk assessors, as well as to the world’s more vulnerable nations and communities, to see some margin for error being built into the policy position in the form of thinking on 1.5°C. Keeping below 2°C will be very challenging as we are already close to, or even at, 1°C. To stay below either threshold figures means emissions must plummet across the globe with, maybe, even some major countries becoming zero-carbon economies between now and 2050. Such a transformation is difficult to see as credible given the pace at which new technologies would need to be introduced or existing ones rolled out.

There are few global agreements involving many counties that have ever worked effectively, unless they involve trade, partly because countries always have over-riding local interests. The Montreal Protocol is a splendid exception, although even here, and for many reasons, it is taking some time for the “ozone hole” to reduce in extent and duration.

The real challenge is that COP21 negotiators may come to a stronger or weaker agreement, but that it makes no difference on the ground when people and their nations take local actions. To achieve success, aspirations need to be turned into a clear set of national policies and programmes of mitigation and adaptation if impacts of a changed climate are to be avoided or a least minimised.

Successful implementation of whatever is agreed in Paris will depend on sub-global, and in reality, local decision-makers and have to be reflected in the choices everyone makes in daily life. “Think globally, act locally” has been a mantra of the environmentally concerned for decades. Humanity has yet to learn how to act on global issues that are not single-issue based as was the case for CFCs or acid rain or, even, persistent pesticides.

Maybe the fact that many countries have valuable economic and social resources based on the coast will sharpen minds and they will learn to how to act. This issue should unite the very smallest and the very largest countries. Sea-level rise is one of the most inexorable consequences of a changing climate and the costs of protecting these resources is very high both locally and globally. Defending a major coastal city can cost between £10bn and £50bn and will always, because of the geography of coastal cities, have its own limitations. Maybe we need a new mantra: “Agree now; act now and here’s how”. ANANHEHO sounds like something wheezing. Once the ink is dry on COP21 let’s hope it’s neither the planet nor its people.

Leave a Reply