With climate change in 2013, the more things changed...
‘Tis the season for retrospective assessment of the past year’s news, and climate change certainly made global headlines in 2013. On the science front, we heard about grim prospects under business as usual for projected temperature increases and associated global impacts on water and food security, human health, polar ice, sea level rise and species loss. When it came to extreme weather events, broken records started to sound like, well, broken records accompanied by human tragedy and economic loss.
...the more they stayed the same.
From a New Zealand perspective in 2013, the more the climate changed, the more climate change policy stayed the same. However, action is emerging in other ways, especially from the nation’s youth who are concerned about their future, local governments that want to future-proof urban development, and businesses that recognise the value of positioning New Zealand to compete under carbon constraints in the longer term.
You can download a free Silver Lining report New Zealand and Climate Change in 2013 with selected climate change news highlights from 2013, links to useful resources and some reflections on the coming year.
I have been working on large-scale climate change solutions professionally for about 20 years now, but this year it's getting personal. My new year's resolution is to take a fresh look at how I can reduce my own emissions, to share my views from the heart on the choices we face and to connect with other people who agree that if we don't change, the climate certainly will. I will be reporting my progress in my blog, and I warmly invite people to make this a conversation.Have you thought about what you can do personally this year to reduce your emissions at home, at work and in your community? Perhaps starting with an emissions resolution can become a stepping stone towards an emissions revolution.
I wish everyone a bright and hope-filled start to the new year!
In late 2012, New Zealand declined a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and opted for a non-binding emission reduction target for 2020 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. On 16 August 2013, the Government finally named its 2020 target: a 5% reduction below 1990 levels.
Not only is the 2020 target weaker than the previous conditional pledge of a 10-20% reduction, but it applies only to a single year, leaving unspecified the responsibility for emissions from 2013 through 2019. The Government has not yet explained how the country will meet this target, how it will count surplus units from the previous period, or whether the Treasury will record target compliance as a financial obligation, as was the case under the Kyoto Protocol. Without this information, it is hard to know what the target actually means. Legally, the only check on New Zealand’s performance will be international reporting and the power of public opinion. Time will tell.
According to its media release, the Government believes it has “carefully balanced the cost to New Zealand households and businesses against taking ambitious action to tackle climate change.” Climate Change Minister Tim Groser was quoted separately in the media as saying, “Unless we get a serious international effort, anything we do with the ETS or subsequent to it is a complete waste of time.”
Really?
While the target is disappointing, the more alarming news here is that New Zealand is ignoring the need for low-carbon development. With an economy heavily dependent on agriculture, forestry, international tourism and shipping, we are lumbering into a future of global carbon constraints and climate impacts. This double-barreled shotgun should make us rethink what we consider a cost and why more ambition could produce substantial returns on our investment.
Where do we stand today? Between 1990 and 2011, our emissions excluding forestry increased over 22% and this does not count international transport fuels, which increased 39%. Our per capita emissions in 2010 were the fifth highest among developed countries. We now rely heavily on forest growth to offset our emissions but expect major harvesting in the coming decades. Our emissions trading scheme is structurally sound but has not been adapted to changing times, and we have lost a meaningful emissions price to drive investment decisions. We will lose direct access to the full Kyoto carbon market after 2015. Alongside land-use conversions from forestry to agriculture, we are pursuing Roads of National Significance and oil and gas exploration.
Being small and unique is no rationale for weak action. When it comes to climate change, everyone has unique circumstances and everyone is too small to fix this problem. This is why we need a collective and cooperative response. About 169 countries each emit less than 1% of global emissions (excluding forestry) yet together they contribute over 25%. Each US state except Texas emits less than 1% of global emissions. Subdividing responsibility does not make it go away. The negotiations to date have proven that waiting to do anything until everyone agrees on everything does not serve our country or our climate, nor does it influence others as much as demonstrating real solutions.
Here is the good news. The Government’s weak target need not stand in the way of shaping a thriving and resilient low-carbon future for New Zealand. We can choose to reduce our emissions not because we have to under a global treaty, but because we want to, because it makes sense for New Zealand and we refuse to settle for anything less as responsible global citizens.
A first step is to start a conversation about how smart climate action can serve New Zealanders both now and in the future. We need to create an effective low-carbon development strategy with broad public and cross-party support. The 100% Possible campaign on renewable energy is a great step in this direction.
Second, we can deepen our commitment in our homes, businesses and cities. We can use less electricity and transport fuels, generate our own renewable energy, reduce our waste, modify our diet and change our purchasing behaviour. We can set our own targets and beat them. We know firsthand that consumer demand can be more powerful more quickly than complex negotiations.
Third, we can demand change from our leaders. They need to know that we will cast our votes according to what they do about climate change.
As change flows outward from individuals to organisations, communities and government, perhaps we can shift as a country from deflecting responsibility and defending entitlements toward facilitating cooperative action. Globally we are interconnected and interdependent, so ultimately none will thrive unless we all do. And isn’t that what we all want?
The unexpected journey
As "The Hobbit" premiered in late 2012, New Zealand’s worthy climate change negotiators journeyed from Wellington, the Middle of Middle-earth, to Doha seeking the hidden treasure of an ambitious global climate change agreement. Guarding that treasure was the dragon of national self-interest, fuelled by the global fear of economic disadvantage.
Before the assembly, New Zealand declined a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, opting instead to take a yet-undecided and non-binding 2020 target under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. New Zealand was not alone; it joined major emitters including the US, Canada, Japan and the Russian Federation.
For “clean, green” New Zealand, this was a break from precedent and a surprise to many observers. Environmentally, the impact will depend on the government’s ultimate 2020 target. We are still waiting for that announcement. Legally, the only check on New Zealand’s performance will be international reporting and the power of public opinion. Time will tell.
Building on the Doha outcome, the June 2013 round of climate negotiations in Bonn was hardly a springboard to swift and ambitious global action. The negotiations remain bogged down in the politics of process. The International Energy Agency even reminded delegates that current policies will deliver a projected temperature increase of 3.6 to 5.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and identified a series of energy-sector solutions available at zero net economic cost using today’s technology. Yet the action we need is just not happening.
Why has this become so hard?
Perhaps New Zealand’s Kyoto decision, taken against the backdrop of political pressure, the growing body of climate change research and recent extreme weather events, offers insights for the global journey ahead.
Unlike "The Hobbit," the climate change negotiations are not about good versus evil. They are about choices and consequences in meeting basic human needs. Currently, the need to reduce emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change is getting swamped by the fear that countries’ growth aspirations will not be met and countries must compete for insufficient entitlements to thrive.
Presumably the New Zealand government sought to safeguard New Zealand’s needs. The popular argument is that New Zealand will bear a disproportionate cost and set the wrong precedent if it commits legally to ambitious mitigation when others do not and it is too small to make a difference.
The problem is that most individuals, businesses and countries on the planet can apply that same argument while the ice sheets melt, weather patterns get more extreme, populations become more vulnerable to famine and drought and we continue to wait for consensus on a treaty. We all feel too small to fix this problem. Unless we are vigilant, “We can’t do this alone” becomes “We won’t do anything yet.” Doing nothing on climate change is like environmental credit card spending with a whopping interest rate; the bill will inevitably come due across the global economy for generations to come.
The heart of the matter
The bottom line is that human-induced climate change is very real and very serious. All emission reductions help. Practical solutions to reduce emissions can benefit the environment, human health, energy security and the economy. Timing matters. Global inaction is already closing the door to the possible futures we would prefer. Since 2007, the negotiations have delivered an Action Plan, an Accord, Agreements, a Platform and a Gateway. What is still missing is a practical pathway to stabilization that will meet people’s needs.
Therefore, what matters most right now is not which agreement countries are in, but what people actually do. We can start by asking the question, “What future do I want and how can I help now?” Everyone has a sphere of influence over emissions and everyone can help.
We just have to shift our thinking.
Think of reducing emissions as an act of liberation, not regulation. Think of it as something we need – like our next breath. Think of it as an act of kindness – a precious gift to our loved ones. Think of it as a service – how can we help someone else in need? Think of it as an adventure – where will we find our next emission reduction? Think of it as a sport – how much faster can we reduce emissions? Think of it as an investment with immense dividends – the potential that our children will inherit.
We can choose whatever image speaks to our heart and make a start because we want to, even if we have no idea how we will reach our destination or how many are travelling with us.
Alongside taking personal responsibility, we can demand ambition and accountability from both governments and producers. We can advocate for emission reduction goals that are robust and supported by policy. Globally, countries fear potential trade repercussions from inadequate climate change policies. Informed producers and consumers exercising their power of choice will be a serious force for change.
Above all, new dialogue and political action should build globally to support meeting people’s fundamental needs by addressing climate change. First, people can learn more about climate change impacts and solutions. The Climate Reality Project offers information and presentations (http://climaterealityproject.org). Second, governments, businesses and researchers can work together to stimulate global investment in lower-emission, more resilient development built on a conception of growth that respects environmental limits and prioritizes universal quality of life. Third, people can find new and creative ways to lead by example and mobilise political will to shift our course. Fourth, voters can make this a core election issue for governments. Fifth, governments can consult on national low-emission development and adaptation strategies that will deliver the kind of future humanity would actually want.
Building on this process, the international climate change negotiations can more easily shift their focus from defending entitlements and deflecting responsibility toward facilitating cooperative action. We are interconnected and interdependent, and ultimately none will thrive unless we all do.
Our climate change journey can still be one of hope and opportunity. Perhaps along the way we will discover that we are worthy of the parting words from the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield to the hobbit Bilbo Baggins: “There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”
On 7 June 2013, the New Zealand Green Party convened a conference in the Legislative Council Chamber called “Meeting the Challenge: A strategy for a New Zealand Climate Policy.” It featured an outstanding series of presentations and constructive conversations covering science, policy and the role of business and civil society. Below is an elaboration of my contribution to the session on “Policy Mechanisms: Market, fiscal and complementary measures – optimal mix?”
I am speaking from my experience having moved to New Zealand to work on the carbon tax and then helping to design the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Where we are today is certainly not where we thought we would be back in 2008 when the scheme entered into law. I would like to offer seven points to contribute to the discussion.
1. We are now connected by a new global currency called carbon dioxide equivalent.
We are beginning to understand that we live in a world where every action that we take – whether we turn on a light bulb, turn on a heater, drive a car, plant a tree, pour a concrete foundation or eat beef and rice for dinner – is connected globally by a new currency called carbon dioxide equivalent. Not only are we connected to each other, but we are also connected to past and future generations. It is an extraordinary realisation that what we do as individuals today is impacting – albeit in a very small way – on all other life on the planet today and in the decades to come. Humanity has never understood its connectedness – or its interdependence – in this way before. In my view, it is inevitable that our global economic system will evolve to reflect this. We are in that transition now.
2. When it comes to our emissions, there is no free lunch.
All of our emissions have a cost. We can pay to reduce our emissions or we can pay for the impact of our emissions. There are obviously distributional issues around who bears the costs of emission reductions and climate impacts, and when. Economists are telling us that globally, the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of reducing our emissions. If we are smart, we will harness these costs as price signals to change emitting behaviour.
3. The atmosphere doesn’t care where emissions and emission reductions occur – but governments, businesses and communities do.
Based on the science, we need to make all of the emission reductions we can as quickly as we can and wherever we can. In my mind, it makes sense to do this at least cost. The NZ ETS was designed to be agnostic about whether New Zealand invests in emission reductions domestically or overseas. To me, the moral outcome is maximising emission reductions globally at least cost, and it is not a moral issue what share of emission reductions occurs domestically as long as all emission reductions have environmental integrity.
However, the important question then becomes how we define “least cost.” When we invest in domestic emission reductions, we capture all of the local benefits of those investments, which can be economic, environmental and social. Those benefits need to be accounted for when we determine what constitutes “least cost.” Perhaps there is some theoretical “ideal balance” between investment in domestic and international emission reductions, but if there is, I doubt that government will know where that balance lies. I also suspect it will change continually over time and across sectors.
When we talk about climate policy, we are really talking about policy for stationary energy, transport, forestry, agriculture and waste. If we decide that we want particular policy outcomes in those sectors and setting a particular emission price will help us with achieving those outcomes, then we may want to limit unit imports (i.e. overseas investment in emission reductions) as one means of controlling that price. But I personally do not see such a limit as a moral issue.
4. Tax or trading?
I have worked on both. While it is true that in their purest form they have some conceptual differences, these days we can design a tax that works like trading and trading that works like a tax. I have reached the conclusion that the “what” is far less important than the “why.” And this is where we are struggling.
I will share with you the best analogy I have found so far for describing an ETS. If you think of the economy as a piece of music, then the carbon price is the harmony with the environment that we have been missing, and an ETS is the soundboard that we use for mixing the music. We can boost the bass, tweak the treble or add a synth note. The ETS changes how we distribute costs across taxpayers, emitters and consumers. The ETS architecture that we have is perfectly sound. But we have to know what kind of music we want to make, and that is where we have lost our way. The ETS we have is a powerful instrument, but the government has never turned up the volume. And by withdrawing from the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the government has just unplugged the soundboard from the electrical socket.
I really hope that we will not waste any more time debating taxes versus trading. The NZ ETS architecture was designed to be adaptable and we can adjust it to deliver whatever outcomes we decide we want for emission pricing and policy certainty in the New Zealand economy.
5. A blunt instrument will not deliver precise outcomes.
If we want to achieve specific policy, economic, environmental and social outcomes, then we cannot rely solely on a blunt price instrument. We will need to use a variety of instruments, such as regulations, fiscal measures and facilitative initiatives, that can operate in concert with a price on emissions. Certainly when officials originally designed the NZ ETS, they never expected it to be New Zealand’s only climate policy.
6. We must include adaptation in our policy portfolio.
We need to develop a collaborative approach to adaptation that brings together central and local government, business and communities to decide what steps we want to take to safeguard the value of our past infrastructure investments and what pathway we want to take for future investment. This approach must include discussions with the insurance industry; if governments and communities do not agree on the way forward, then our choices may end up being decided by insurers. At the recent climate conference in Palmerston North, there was useful discussion about how to develop adaptation pathways with triggers as an alternative to demanding long-term commitments up front. This is an issue of great importance to the Wellington City Council.
7. There is no point in debating solutions until we understand our needs.
The topic of this session is choosing the optimal mix of policy measures. In my view, we cannot even begin to make those decisions until we have a shared vision for the kind of low-emission future we want for New Zealand. In the international negotiations, Parties have recommended that countries prepare Low-Emission Development Strategies. New Zealand has not chosen to do this so far, but I am wondering if this might actually be a really good idea. We are facing a future of emission constraints and climate impacts, and New Zealand’s economy is emissions intensive and climate vulnerable. We need to have a courageous conversation about how we want to meet the needs of New Zealanders in the future. How do we want to shape the development of our stationary energy, transport, forestry, agriculture and waste sectors in an integrated way so that we can continue to thrive as a country? This conversation is not just about defining our responsibilities, but about creating opportunities for New Zealand.
The conference we are having today is helping us to start that conversation. I look forward to the next stage of the discussion.
On 29 April 2013, I gave a public Climate Reality presentation in the Council Chambers in Wellington Town Hall. The presentation was supported by Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Sustainability Trust. Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown opened the presentation, and Dr James Renwick from Victoria University contributed his technical expertise to the session on questions and answers. I am very grateful for everyone's support.
Below are the speech notes that were my personal contribution to the core presentation designed by former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore under The Climate Reality Project.
I see a need for us to start a conversation. This conversation is a courageous conversation. It is a conversation about how we can meet the needs of New Zealanders by taking action on climate change. I believe that if we pass up the opportunities that are in front of us today, we will seriously regret that loss. After nearly 20 years of working on these issues, I have never been more concerned than I am today about the choices that we are making without being conscious of their true cost. I have also never been more certain – or more excited – about how much we stand to gain by seizing these opportunities and how important it is for us to do more now.
Look at where we stand right now. New Zealand is facing a carbon-constrained future with an emissions-intensive economy that is heavily dependent on tourism, agriculture, forestry and shipping, all of which are vulnerable to climate impacts. While we say we are willing to do our fair share, New Zealand’s gross emissions have increased 22.1% between 1990 and 2011. Including forestry with full carbon stock accounting (which is what the atmosphere sees), our net emissions have increased 88%. Those figures exclude our international transport fuels, which increased 39% between 1990 and 2011. Our per capita emissions in 2010 were the 5th highest among developed countries. We are currently relying on forest growth to offset our emissions, but we are facing a major harvesting cycle in the coming decades. We have failed to adapt our emissions trading scheme to changing conditions and we have lost a meaningful price on emissions in our economy. Alongside growing land-use conversions from forestry to agriculture, we are increasing investment in Roads of National Significance and oil and gas exploration.
If we know that climate change is a very serious problem, and we know that there are solutions available with today’s technology, and we know that these solutions offer new economic opportunities and benefits for human health and the environment, then why isn’t New Zealand doing more to reduce its emissions?
I think that here in New Zealand, we are trapped in myths of our own making. While there are many, perhaps the most powerful myth of all is this one: “We are too small to make a difference.” This is not a myth of denial, but a myth of apathy. What we may not realise is that everyone feels too small to make a difference. I have heard the same argument from the US auto industry – why should the auto industry have to bear a cost when it can’t fix the problem?
The reality is that we as New Zealanders are not too small to make a difference. The world needs all the emission reductions we can make, and it doesn’t matter if those reductions come from large emitters or small emitters. New Zealand happens to be both. Our national emissions are small, but our per capita emissions are high. New Zealand has a proud history of showing global leadership and innovation, and of doing the unexpected. I am convinced New Zealand can do it with climate change as well. New Zealand’s potential sphere of influence over emissions is much greater than we may recognise.
What New Zealand is missing at the moment is a vision for the kind of low-emission future that will allow us to thrive environmentally, economically and socially. In the UN climate change negotiations, Parties have recommended creating national low-emission development strategies. New Zealand has not taken this on board, but I am wondering if that might actually be a really good idea.
I have worked on both a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme (ETS). While they are different in their purest form, these days the difference has become blurred. We can design a tax that works like trading, we can design trading that works like a tax and there are endless hybrids in between. I have reached the conclusion that in actuality, the “what” doesn’t matter as much as the “why.” And that is where New Zealand is struggling.
If we think of the economy as a complex piece of music, then an ETS is the soundboard that we use for mixing it. We can tweak the treble or the bass, augment one line and tone another one down, and correct a note that is out of tune. But first we need to know what kind of music we are making.
We have lost sight of why we are using our ETS because we do not have a common vision for the kind of low-emission economy we want to create for New Zealand. Do we want domestic emission reductions or not? How much do we want to rely on forestry and agriculture to produce our GDP and our export revenue? Do we want to drive investment changes by our industries or shelter our industries from investment changes? Do we care where the changes take place or do we want to let the market decide? Do we care how the costs get distributed across emitters, producers, consumers and taxpayers? Do we want a low price of power or a high one, and for whom, and why? Do we want to raise revenue or not? If we raise revenue, how do we want to return it to the people?
The architecture of the NZ ETS is effective, but a soundboard is useless if we don’t have a vision for the music we are creating. Is our vision classical, hip hop, jazz, R&B or techno? At this point in time, not only are we not clear what kind of music we are making, but by withdrawing from the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, we have just unplugged the ETS soundboard from the electrical socket.
Do we think we might be ready now to have that courageous conversation? Do we really want to wait any longer?
Perhaps we could start by talking about what we want our beautiful country to look like. How do we want to meet our people’s needs in the next 10, 20 and 30 years? How might we shape the development of our stationary energy, transport, agriculture, forestry water and waste sectors in an integrated way – looking at how they interact with each other – to deliver that future? Perhaps if we took the time to develop this vision so it was widely shared across people and political parties, we wouldn’t have this problem of boom-and-bust policy cycles that are creating so much investment uncertainty and holding us back.
You probably came here expecting me to tell you what you should do about climate change. Well, the truth is, I don’t know. I don’t stand in your shoes and I don’t know what you should do. Globally, we have spent over 20 years arguing about what we should do and we aren’t getting anywhere. So instead, I am going to ask you a different question. A very simple question.
What do you WANT to do?
You see, my experience suggests that no one will be able to make us reduce our emissions, but when we decide that we want to do this, when we see that this actually meets our needs, we will. This is about shifting our thinking.
We can learn a lot from how we responded to the drought this year in Wellington. We got early warnings that we would be more vulnerable to drought while our storage system was being upgraded. And maybe there were some people who started taking precautions. But we didn’t seriously pay attention to this issue as a city until we only had 20 days of water. And at that point, when the call went out for urgent action, we all pulled together. It didn’t matter if we were big or small water users. We all helped in whatever way we could to save as much water as we could, whether it was by taking shorter showers, or changing how we washed our dishes, or not cleaning our police cars, or not watering our parks and sports fields. We became acutely aware of how much water we had been wasting without realising it, and how easy it would be to use our water more intelligently. All those actions by individuals added up and bought us the time that we needed until the rain started again. While we were lucky this time and the adjustment wasn’t really painful, it could have been even more gentle if we had started earlier. But this experience shows us that we can change when we decide that we want to.
Can you imagine what would have happened instead if we had followed the path of the climate change negotiations? We would have started by trying to reach consensus across the entire city on legally binding, short, medium and long-term targets for reducing our water consumption in order to lower our risk of running out of water over the next 100 years to 50%. We would then have adjusted the target based on the estimated economic cost of that target per litre of water in Wellington compared to that of our trade competitors in other parts of the world. And then we would have tried to find an equitable way to allocate water entitlements on the basis of how much water people were consuming before and after 1990, whether they qualified as rich or poor people, and how much water they should be allowed to consume in the future based on how much we thought they deserved it. Finally, we would have designed a system for monitoring, reporting and verifying our water consumption so that we could punish noncompliance by free riders. And we all know what would have happened – we would have run out of water!
This is exactly what we are doing right now in the climate negotiations. I wish I was joking. And it is not serving us. We are at a crisis point where we need to get down to the business of helping each other to reduce emissions so they can peak globally by 2020 and decline thereafter.
If you decide that you want to do something as an individual, what can you do?
First, you can join the courageous conversation. When you are at a dinner party or reading letters to the editor and someone blames climate change on solar activity, or suggests that temperatures have not increased since 1998, provide an alternative view and point them toward a reliable source of accurate information. Good resources are the Reality Drop initiative from The Climate Reality Project (www.RealityDrop.org) and Skeptical Science (www.SkepticalScience.com). Use your social media networks to share scientific updates, express your personal concern and raise a call for action.
Second, you can deepen your personal commitment. Identify opportunities to reduce the emissions that you generate directly by your daily activities, or indirectly by the goods and services that you buy. Your influence as a consumer exercising the power of choice can be greater and more immediate than that of complex trade negotiations. Ask yourself what steps you are ready to take to reduce your consumption of electricity, natural gas and transport fuels, generate your own renewable energy, reduce your waste, modify your diet and buy fewer goods that you may not really need.
Third, you can demand change from your leaders. Our leaders are elected as our representatives, and the power they wield is our power. They need to know that it matters to us what they do about climate change, and that we will cast our votes accordingly. Al Gore reminds us that “Changing laws is even more important than changing light bulbs,” and even more importantly, “Political will is a renewable resource.”
This is the time for each of us to look deep into our heart and ask, “What kind of future do I want, and how can I help now?”
The start of a journey
You are invited to join me on a journey to find the silver lining as the global community confronts climate change. I don’t know what this journey will look like, but I know in my heart I need to make it and I cannot make it alone.
I have been working on climate change issues since 1992, when I was in college. I majored in biology and French, but the Rio Earth Summit was in the news and I took a course on the geology of climate change and another where I studied Earth in the Balance by Al Gore and The End of Nature by Bill McKibben. I followed up with a course surveying US environmental policy and that did it. I got hooked by the mystery of how the world was going to change the course of politics, economics, technology and human behavior to deal with this enormous problem. That drew me into a career in climate change policy that has taken me from Washington, DC to Wellington, New Zealand in search of solutions.
Twenty years later...
As a student, I would not have predicted that in 2013 we would still be facing the lingering corrosive skepticism of a vocal minority, the power of vested interests in fossil fuels, the inertia in the international negotiations and the failure of governments to enact serious policies that combine climate change and development solutions. Above all, I would not have guessed that so many people today would be more afraid of the solutions than of the problem. Study
after study is showing us that the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action; we simply cannot afford to do nothing. Not only that, we are missing out on the valuable co-benefits from reducing our emissions.
Some people hope that climate change impacts will be linear and gradual, giving us time to find a technological fix that will safeguard the future even if it can’t undo the damage already done. However, scientists are discussing the possibility of nearer-term tipping points where feedbacks trigger the acceleration of catastrophic climate change impacts.
The tipping point we want...
What I am focusing on right now is another kind of tipping point – the positive kind. We have seen a tipping point with the understanding and acceptance of human-induced climate change by the vast majority of the scientific community, as evidenced by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have seen a tipping point in popular media coverage of climate change issues; although this is not universal, there are almost daily stories of climate change studies and linkages between climate change, severe weather events and economic impacts.
I am hopeful that we are on the verge of another tipping point – that of individuals taking personal responsibility for reducing their emissions and starting a wave of transformational change that flows out from where they live and work to their city, their country and the planet, bringing with it connection, compassion, innovation and opportunity.
If I get to choose a tipping point, that is the one I want. I can see the silver lining glinting through the clouds already….