Votes : 0

Is a Climate Catastrophe Inevitable?

Fernando de la Iglesia Viguiristi SJ - La Civiltà Cattolica - Tue, Jan 31st 2023

Is a Climate Catastrophe Inevitable?
For nearly 30 years, governments around the world have been meeting annually to develop a common approach toward the looming climate emergency. This is an obligation since, according to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), all countries committed themselves through that treaty to avert dangerous climate change and to identify ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, globally, in an equitable manner. Since the first UNFCCC conference (COP1), held in 1995 in Berlin, annual meetings have followed with mixed outcomes. They have been confrontational, soporific and sometimes even disastrous, such as the one in Copenhagen in 2009. One, however, has been pivotal: COP21 in Paris in 2015.

COP27 was a continuation of the previous year’s summit, COP26, which had been held in Glasgow. Organized by the Egyptian government in Sharm el-Sheikh, COP27 was held during November 6-18, 2022. In it, “a breakthrough agreement to provide ‘loss and damage’ funding relief [due to impacts on physical and social infrastructure] for vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters, and a set of decisions was made to limit global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels.”[1]

We will try here to evaluate the agreements reached and reflect on the climate issue, which is of vital importance.

 

The climate issue after the Paris Agreement

Let us  start with the context. In accord with the historic Paris Agreement, countries pledged to keep the global temperature rise to within 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to strive to limit warming to +1.5°C. They also agreed to define non-binding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce or, in the case of developing countries, halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. At the Paris conference it was clear to all that the NDCs were inadequate; therefore, it was agreed that countries would return to meet every five years to set new commitments. The first five-year period expired on December 31, 2020, and at COP26 in November 2021, countries came together to set new targets. They agreed to stick to the ambitious +1.5°C target set in the Paris Agreement. Indeed, extensive investigations had made it clear that a +2°C target would not prevent massive and irreversible devastation. It was also decided  that adjustments to the NDCs would be made annually.

No one in Glasgow could have predicted how different the world we live in today would be. Putin’s illegitimate invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 radically altered the geopolitical picture, and the world went into crisis. The Kremlin did not hesitate to use European energy dependence as a weapon of war. Energy prices, already soaring in a world that was recovering from the impact of Covid-19 before the conflict erupted, are now skyrocketing, especially gas prices. This has benefited fossil fuel companies, which are racking up record profits and are intent on securing  new supplies, building liquefied natural gas terminals and seeking deals with various countries, in Africa and elsewhere, in order to explore new fields. All this despite the fact that the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that any increase in the use of fossil fuels must be avoided if we are to stay within the +1.5°C margin.[2]

Will we be able to stay under this margin? Apparently not. Even if all the short- and long-term promises made in Glasgow were kept, temperatures would still rise about 1.8°C above pre-industrial levels, says the IEA, a significant improvement over the NDCs presented in Paris, but still far from the threshold under which the world would  fall. As part of the Paris Agreement, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), i.e. the world’s foremost authority on climate science, took it upon itself to thoroughly examine what a 1.5°C temperature increase would mean for the planet. Its experts found that such an increase would result in further sea level rise and an increase in heat waves, droughts and floods, more violent storms and devastating wildfires. But all this would still be small compared to the extreme events that would accompany a 2°C increase.

Temperatures around the world are already between 1.1 and 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. To stay within 1.5°C, global emissions will have to decline by 7 percent annually throughout this decade. Instead, they are rising.

What could and should have been expected from COP27?

Ahead of COP27, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said, “There are those who fear that this year’s UN Climate Change Conference […] may become an unintended victim of the geopolitical tensions and economic challenges the world is facing. I, on the other hand, think the opposite: COP27 represents a unique and providential opportunity for the world to unite, recognize common interests, and restore multilateral cooperation. […] Climate action, after all, is a pact. Developing countries have agreed in good faith to help address a crisis they did not cause, on the condition that they receive support – especially financial support – to supplement their efforts, which are often limited due to scarce resources and concomitant developmental demands. Developed countries must fulfill their part of the agreement by supporting both mitigation and adaptation, thus fulfilling their responsibilities under the Paris Agreement.” [3] Thus he directed attention to climate financing, that is, money that must be provided to poor countries to help them reduce emissions, adapt to new conditions and cope with the impact of extreme weather events.

Sharm el-Sheikh’s conclusions

The Egyptian climate summit, in fact, began with good news: delegates agreed to include in the conference agenda an item devoted to “loss and damage,” referring to the harshest impacts of the climate crisis, which are too great for countries to adapt to or prepare for, each on their own. The devastating floods that occurred in Pakistan last summer, to the point of putting 20 million people in need of humanitarian aid, with a 2 percent impact on GDP, or the current drought in Africa, the worst in 40 years, which has brought 150 million people to the brink of extreme hunger, “are just the latest reminder of the damage already caused by global warming.”[4] Recovering from such devastation, when it is even possible, may take years.

For nearly 30 years, developing countries, affected by these disasters have been seeking financial assistance. The fact that agreement was finally reached on a fund was a very important success. Now comes the hard part: the fund needs to be established and financed. But there is still no agreement on how this funding should be provided and where it should come from. The agreement therefore may seem vague, but it is nonetheless a significant step forward for international climate diplomacy. At last the thorny issue of who should pay for the damage caused by extreme weather conditions related to global warming in poor countries has been addressed, and it has been recognized that  those poor countries did not cause it. Since the Alliance of Small Island States called in 1991 for a compensation mechanism for countries affected by sea-level rise, more and more vulnerable nations have realized that they have been exposed to climate change consequences beyond their ability to mitigate or adapt to them on their own.

Calculating the financial claims associated with climate damage is very complex. Over the past two decades, climate change may already have wiped out a fifth of the total economy of 58 of the most vulnerable countries, amounting to $525 billion in economic damage.[5] But these are  estimates which are extremely difficult to determine, and as such questionable. The idea of a mechanism to help vulnerable countries deal with loss and damage has been gaining ground over time. COP26, in 2021, had been on the verge of creating a “Glasgow Loss and Damage Fund” that would have channeled contributions from rich nations to poor and climate-vulnerable countries. But that initiative was rejected by the richer economies, led by the European Union and the United States, which feared that they would be saddled with unlimited liability.

Therefore, we should appreciate the resolution reached at COP27, which states: “That Governments took the groundbreaking decision to establish […] a specific fund to help developing countries respond to loss and damage, is to be welcomed. The governments also agreed to establish a ‘transition committee’ to make recommendations on how to put into effect both the new financing arrangements and the fund for next year’s COP28. The first meeting of the transition committee is expected to take place by the end of March 2023.”[6]

In addition to this promising agreement, what were the significant results of the COP27 climate summit?[7] In Glasgow, at COP26 in 2021, the participating countries had agreed to set the limit of temperature increase at +1.5°C. In COP27, some of them tried to evade this and abolish the annual verification and increase mechanism. Many countries went to Sharm el-Sheikh in the hope of making lucrative gas deals, especially African countries with large untapped reserves. In Glasgow, after three decades of conferences, a commitment to progressively reduce coal use had finally been agreed upon. At COP27, some countries, led by India, wanted to go further and introduce a commitment to phase out all fossil fuels. There were heated discussions about this until late into the night on the last day, but in the end the move failed and the resolution adopted was the same as the one in Glasgow.

A growing number of developed and developing countries have called for urgent reform of the World Bank and other publicly funded financial institutions because they have proven unable to provide the supplementary funds poor countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the repercussions of the climate crisis. Reform of the kind widely discussed at COP27 would involve recapitalizing development banks, aimed at enabling them to provide much more proactive assistance. To put this in context, the United Nations estimates that developing countries need between $5.8 trillion and $5.9 trillion in financing to implement the Paris Agreement up until  2030.[8]

Such measures as building flood defenses, preserving wetlands, restoring mangrove and regenerating forests, along with others, would help greater resilience in responding to climate change. But poor countries often have difficulty obtaining funds to use for such purposes. Of the $100 billion a year that rich countries have promised to provide since 2020 – a promise that has yet to be fulfilled – only about $20 billion is earmarked for adaptation. In Glasgow, countries had agreed to double the amount, but at COP27 some of them tried to go back on that pledge, but it was eventually reaffirmed.

An overall assessment of COP27

Climate experts welcomed the agreement to establish a “loss and damage” fund, but at the same time judged the outcome of COP27  a failure on the carbon dioxide reduction commitment. The stalemate on this issue was blamed on oil-producing countries and large emitters, who weakened and removed key commitments on greenhouse gasses and fossil fuel phase-out.

UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, warned: “Our Planet is still in need of resuscitation. We need to drastically reduce emissions now, and this is an issue that COP27 did not address. The world still needs to take giant steps in terms of climate ambition.” Major economies must make new commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because the world is on the brink of climate catastrophe.[9]

Important reactions appeared in the media. For example, that of economist Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, who wrote, “Fossil fuel producing countries are responsible for blocking attempts to reach a more ambitious agreement. The text makes no mention of phasing out fossil fuels and makes little reference to the 1.5°C target.” Alok Sharma, president of COP26, was visibly displeased with how the conference ended: “Those of us who came to Egypt to keep the +1.5°C target alive and to meet what we all agreed to in Glasgow had to fight tirelessly to hold that line. We had to fight to restart from one of the key outcomes of Glasgow: the call for parties to review and strengthen their national emission plans. I had said in Glasgow that the pulse of the world at +1.5°C was weak. Unfortunately, it remains in need of resuscitation.”[10]

Climate justice

Today, developing countries are mounting a stinging argument against the rich world. They blame the developed countries for having spread carbon into the atmosphere for more than a century. According to James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, those countries are responsible for 77 percent of all carbon emissions released between 1751 and 2006: the United States alone has produced 28 percent during that time. The carbon dioxide emissions that can be traced annually to the average U.S. citizen are equivalent to those of 581 Burundians, or 51 Mozambicans (last year hit by typhoons, which scientists have attributed to warming of the Indian Ocean), or 35 Bengalis (currently threatened by both rising sea levels and increasingly erratic rainfall). The 1 billion people living in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, emit about 823 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, with a per capita rate of 0.8 tons, or about one-twentieth that of the United States.[11]

In 2020, the global average CO2 emissions per capita was 6.3 tons. The United States is still well above this level, with 14t, followed by the Russian Federation with 13t, China with 9.7t, Brazil and Indonesia with 7.5t, and the European Union with 7.2t. India remains well below the world average at 2.4t. On average, the least developed countries emit 2.3 t of CO2 per capita per year.[12]

The accusation is a serious one. These disparities show that developed countries are making others pay for their growth, that is  the climate change story is enmeshed with growing inequality. Beyond the direct economic damage, climate change disproportionately slows economic growth in poorer countries, further widening the gap with rich ones.[13]

The world’s poorest countries, that is, those that have done the least to cause the climate crisis, are the hardest hit. In the past, some experts had already tried to quantify in “loss and damage” terms the form of compensation or reparation owed by rich countries to poor ones. However, developed and larger developing countries refused to sign legal agreements that would potentially make them liable for unlimited future costs. Therefore, prior to COP27, the debate centered on viewing the issue of “loss and damage” as a bailout and rehabilitation fund for countries suffering the most from the current climate situation.

However, the issue of “climate reparations” resurfaced at COP27. At the Egyptian summit, civil society activists strongly demanded reparations demanding the transfer of trillions of dollars from the richest to the poorest as a moral obligation. Some also tried to frame the issue as one of “accountability” and “repayment” from the richest countries to the poorest. But is it correct to talk about “reparations”? Yes, but it may not be helpful. Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for human rights, an influential voice in the context of the “climate battle,” told The Guardian, “I can understand why we talk about reparations, but it’s a counterproductive route, because it puts lawyers in the field. If we talk about justice instead, it opens up better prospects.”[14]

The newspaper also reports the opinion of Nicholas Stern, a British economist and author of the Stern Report on Climate Change, published in 2006. For him, talk of reparations makes no sense from a historical perspective. Rich countries until about 40 years ago did not think that their carbon dioxide emissions were a problem, did not think that global warming existed. Developing countries including China, which is now the world’s second-largest emitter, have used those same technologies to industrialize. According to Stern, discussions about reparations are futile and will delay the arrival at a concrete resolution of “loss and damage.” Rich countries should step up: they have a moral obligation to do so, and there is no time to get bogged down in sterile discussions.

Final considerations

First, it must be acknowledged that the goal of limiting global warming to +1.5°C is severely compromised, if not already virtually unattainable.[15] Tensions fueled by the Russian invasion of Ukraine have prevented the agreements reached in Glasgow from being strengthened. We are going through a very dark time. Climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate, claiming lives and livelihoods on every continent. It threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health and poverty reduction, and further widen health inequalities between and within populations.[16] The past seven years have been the hottest on record, driven by ever-increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and accumulated heat.[17]

Ever since James Hansen, the prophet of climate change, testified before the U.S. Senate in June 1988 that the greenhouse effect caused by gasses released through human activity was already changing our climate, the consensus in the scientific community on the subject has gradually grown and become increasingly confirmed.[18] Reports produced by the IPCC, under the auspices of the United Nations, have asserted  our responsibility for climate change in increasingly strident language. In 2015, at COP21 in Paris, the debate changed fundamentally: instead of dwelling on the uncertainties associated with different aspects of climate, as had been the case until then, it focused on global warming and the need to respond urgently to a looming catastrophe. A few months earlier, the governor of the Bank of England, in a speech at the London headquarters of Lloyd’s Insurance, had said that the climate issue had become a real risk to the stability of the financial system.[19] He believed that the oil and gas reserves of energy companies could remain unexploited  due to the absence of market outlets, as they were rendered useless by policies imposed to ensure a less overheated world. He recommended divesting from traditional companies and putting resources into financing the decarbonization of the economy.

The scientific and financial communities recognize the inevitable consequences of the climate crisis. Denialism has become difficult to sustain, yet it persists as both a theoretical position and a practical attitude. UN data is clear: the latest reports describe processes that now seem irreversible.[20] These include the warming of the Amazon, which could turn the rainforest into a savanna, thus converting it from a reservoir of oxygen into a source of carbon, and the thawing of permafrost, which releases methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. We are facing an incredible threat, in which many interests are mixed: suffice to mention that the world’s largest multinationals are linked to energy. It is about moving toward a new model of energy generation, but also toward a different way of producing, consuming and living. The changes needed affect every aspect of the economy. This is the most difficult problem public policy has ever had to face: it is global, affecting every point on the Planet. The challenge is colossal, unique in history.[21]

There are not a few who think there is no solution, unless a technological breakthrough comes to our rescue that can reabsorb the carbon with which we have bombarded the stratosphere.[22] In this regard, we have just learned that some scientists in the United States have succeeded in recreating nuclear fusion. Thus, we are closer to having an almost unlimited source of clean energy, but there is still a long way to go before fusion powers our homes.[23] In any case, we cannot go on like this: we must steer the transition to a more comprehensive and inclusive model of development, based on international and intergenerational solidarity and responsibility.

Catholic Social Teaching proposes irrevocable and clear principles: the universal destination of creation and its care are the responsibility of all. In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church we read, “Care for the environment represents a challenge for all of humanity. It is a matter of a common and universal duty, that of respecting a common good” (No. 466); “Responsibility for the environment should also find adequate expression on a juridical level. It is important that the international community draw up uniform rules” (No. 468). In 2021, in his message to COP26 participants, Pope Francis reminded them that special attention must be paid to the most vulnerable populations, because toward them an “ecological debt” has been accumulated that “raises in some ways, the issue of foreign debt, the burden of which often hinders the development of peoples.” Therefore, “developed countries ought to help pay the ecological debt by significantly limiting their consumption of nonrenewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development. A development in which, at last, everyone can participate.”[24]

The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, in his address to COP27 referred to migrants displaced by multiplying and intensifying disasters. In this regard, he spoke of a real “socio-ecological crisis,” which requires prevention and response measures. He stressed that we cannot ignore the direct relationship between the food crisis and the climate crisis; that levels of malnutrition are on the rise; and that this is closely related to water scarcity, as it is increasingly difficult to ensure access to a stable water supply for sanitation purposes.[25]

In conclusion: our planet is sick, afflicted with a persistent “fever.” We are faced with the dilemma between to be or not to be. Worthy as a conclusion are a few lines composed by Georges Moustaki in the song “There was a Garden”: There was a garden as big as a valley / where one could feed in all seasons / on the scorching earth or the frozen grass / and discover flowers that had no name. // There was a garden called Earth / big enough for thousands of children / our grandparents once lived there / they too had received it from their grandparents. // Where is this garden where we could have been born?

No doubt, it is up to us to recover it.


DOI:  La Civiltà Cattolica, En. Ed. Vol. 7, no.2 art. 6, 0223: 10.32009/22072446.0223.6

[1].      UN, “COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New ‘Loss and Damage’ Fund for Vulnerable Countries”, November 20, 2022 (https://tinyurl.com/5n97zbap).

[2].      Cf. IEA, “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector”, May 18, 2021 (https://tinyurl.com/5n6hcd4s).

[3].      S. Shoukry, “La COP di non ritorno”, in Project Syndicate (https://tinyurl. com/393yp223), October 11, 2022.

[4].      S. Tagliapietra, “Success at COP27 will be defined by progress on climate finance and ‘loss and damage’,” in Bruegel (https://tinyurl.com/bdhrp2hv), November 9, 2022.

[5].      Cf. “New: Climate Vulnerable Economies Loss Report”, in Climate Vulnerable Forum, June 8, 2022.

[6].      “COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New ‘Loss and Damage’ Fund for Vulnerable Countries”, November 20, 2022 (https://tinyurl.com/5n97zbap).

[7].      Cf. UN Climate Change, “Decisions taken at the Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Change Conference”, November 2022 (unfccc.int/cop27/auv); F. Harvey, “What are the key outcomes of Cop27 climate summit?” in The Guardian, November 20, 2022. See also M. Sicilia, “COP 27: Expectativas y limitaciones”, in Real Instituto Elcano, November 22, 2022.

[8].      Cf. UNFCCC, “Determination of the needs of developing country Parties”, 2021 (https://tinyurl.com/hsxnv37f).

[9].      Cf. “La Conferencia sobre Cambio Climático se cierra con un paso hacia la justicia,” in Noticias ONU (news.un.org/es/story/2022/11/1517012), November 20, 2022.

[10].    F. Harvey, “World still ‘on brink of climate catastrophe’ after COP27 deal”, in The Guardian (https://tinyurl.com/47v2t3r3), November 20, 2022.

[11].    Cf. M. Adow, “The Climate Debt. What the West Owes the Rest”, in Foreign Affairs (https://tinyurl.com/ym276wc6), May-June 2020.

[12].    Cf. UNEP, “Emissions Gap Report 2022”, October 27, 2022 (https://tinyurl.com/84d8nudn).

[13].    Cf. United Nations – Economic Commission for Africa, “Climate Change Impacts on Africa’s Economic Growth” (https://tinyurl.com/2xxav3bv).

[14].    F. Harvey et Al, “COP27: is it right to talk of ‘reparations’?” in The Guardian (https://tinyurl.com/5n8mhvbf), November 18, 2022.

[15].    Cf. B. McGuire, Hothouse Earth: An Inhabitant’s Guide, London, Icon Books 2022; Id., “The 1.5C climate target is dead – to prevent total catastrophe, COP27 must admit it”, in The Guardian, November 12, 2022.

[16].    Cf. WHO, “Climate change” (www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change), November 12, 2022.

[17].    Cf. WMO, “The State of the Global Climate 2021” (https://tinyurl.com/2s3wrub7).

[18].    Cf. F. Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate”, in The New York Times, June 24, 1988.

[19].    Cf. M. Carney, “Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon – Climate change and financial stability”, September 29, 2015 (https://tinyurl.com/2zz7zak4).

[20].    Cf. IPCC, “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” (https://tinyurl.com/2j25sbjd).

[21].    Cf. J. Sachs, L’era dello sviluppo sostenibile, Milan, Egea, 2015, 396-398.

[22].    Cf. B. Gates, Clima. Come evitare un disastro: le soluzioni di oggi, le sfide di domani, Milan, La Nave di Teseo, 2021.

[23].    Cf. E. Stallard, “Clima y Ciencia”, in BBC News (www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-63963737), December 13, 2022.

[24].    Francis, Message to COP26, October 29, 2021, at www.vatican.va

[25].    Cf. A. Palermo, “COP27, Parolin: poco tempo per correggere la rotta, questa opportunità non va sprecata”, in Vatican News (https://tinyurl.com/2fj2h8tb), November 8, 2022.

share :
tags icon tags :
comments icon Without comments

Comments

write comment
Please enter the letters as they are shown in the image above.