by DK
Other nations have voiced their own concerns with the Paris Agreement. The government of Nicaragua, which joined the accord in 2017, criticized the Agreement for not going far enough and argued that it will not reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to avert global climate disaster. The Paris Agreement also lacks a mechanism to ensure that countries that have signed it comply with its terms.
The Paris Agreement was signed by 195 member countries of the UNFCCC. It placed the responsibility on developed nations to assist those who lacked the funds or resources to combat climate change alone.
Desperate measures
According to the terms of the Paris Agreement, countries must work together to limit the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels. The Agreement also seeks to go further, suggesting that the increase should be limited to only 1.5°C (2.7°F). In a study published in the journal Earth System Dynamics in 2016, climate scientist Carl-Friedrich Schleussner and his co-researchers argued that while an increase of 1.5°C would create a global environment mirroring the current highest temperatures experienced, a 2°C increase would usher in a “new climate regime” unlike anything humans have seen before.
Subsequent research has shown that this 1.5°C target will prove difficult to meet. In 2018, the IPCC produced a Special Report on global warming, as it had been tasked to do by the Paris Agreement. Its findings were alarming. Rather than being on track for the 1.5°C target, the world is now headed closer to 3°C above preindustrial levels. To recover and hit the target of 1.5°C would require nations to take unprecedented and drastic measures. Global human CO2 emissions would need to drop 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and in 2050, would need to reach “net zero,” meaning that humans create no emissions without also removing an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The IPCC’s 2018 report also appealed to individuals to do their part to lower CO2 emissions. Land use, energy, cities, and industry are the major areas in which the IPCC suggests change is necessary: people should embrace electric cars; walk and bicycle more; and fly less often, because planes produce a significant proportion of greenhouse gases. The IPCC also encouraged people to buy less meat, milk, cheese, and butter, because reduced demand for these products should lead to lower emissions by the meat and dairy processing industries. While global agreements such as Kyoto and Paris have dominated the conversation, it is now clear that any and all methods to lower CO2 emissions must be pursued.
“We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5°C.”
Professor Jim Skea
Co-Chair, IPCC working group III
Climate change denial
Despite the consensus by the majority of scientists around the world that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon and requires urgent intervention, climate change denial persists in many of the world’s most powerful nations. Several scholars have termed the opposition to the facts of climate change a “denial machine,” in which conservative media and industries benefitting from lax environmental regulations create an environment of uncertainty and scepticism about climate change science.
Some scepticism comes from those who suggest scientists’ estimations are too alarmist, and that global warming is happening more slowly than predicted. Others see the idea of climate change as a human phenomenon as a hoax, instead claiming that global warming is a natural cycle for the planet and not a product of human behavior. Whatever the reason, denial of climate change among some policymakers and business leaders is a position that that the IPCC and scientists continue to disprove.
See also: Global warming • Deforestation • Man and the Biosphere Programme • Sustainable Biosphere Initiative • The economic impact of climate change
IN CONTEXT
KEY FIGURE
Jane Lubchenco (1947–)
BEFORE
1388 England’s Parliament makes it illegal to throw waste into public watercourses such as ditches and rivers.
1970s British scientist James Lovelock and American microbiologist Lynn Margulis develop the Gaia hypothesis.
AFTER
1992 Canadian ecologist William Rees introduces the concept of the “ecological footprint” to describe human impact on the environment.
2000 Dutch Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen popularizes the idea that the world has entered a new geological epoch known as the Anthropocene, or “Age of Man.” This era recognizes the monumental and often dangerous ecological impacts humans make on the planet.
The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (SBI) emerged in 1988 due to the efforts of the Ecological Society of America (ESA) to establish what scientific research should be prioritized given the limited funding available. At this time, the field of ecology was undergoing a transition towards applied science—using knowledge to develop practical solutions relevant to contemporary environmental issues. American environmentalist Jane Lubchenco led the SBI, and paved the way for the ESA (and others) to promote useful ecological knowledge as scientists raced to combat environmental degradation.
“The SBI has stimulated improvements in understanding and in advancing connections between ecological knowledge and society.”
Jane Lubchenco
Prioritizing the planet
The scientists of the SBI set out a new path for the field of ecology, and determined which research areas would be the most important in the years to come. They sought to prioritize three fields of research: global change, biological diversity, and sustainable ecological systems. Studies of global change look at the atmosphere, climate, soil and water (including changes due to pollution), and patterns of land- and water-use. Research into biological diversity focuses on the conservation of endangered species and the study of natural and manmade changes in genetic and habitat diversity. Finally, studies of sustainable ecological systems analyze the interactions between humans and ecological processes in order for scientists to find solutions to the stresses they detect in ecosystems.
The SBI stressed the need for funding for such research, and also highlighted the importance of sharing findings with those outside the scientific community. It set out a process for applied ecological research that included not only acquiring new knowledge, but communicating it and helping incorporate it into real-world policy changes.
The future of research
Lubchenco and her colleagues created the SBI as both a mission statement and an argument for why ecological research deserved more funding and attention. Their report was published in 1991 in the journal Ecology as “The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An Ecological Research Agenda.” It was well received within the scientific community, and has been adapted for use at a global level—first in the International Sustainable Biosphere Initiative that was developed in Mexico in 1991, and then in Agenda 21, an action plan adopted in 1992 at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Since 1991, the SBI and its report have influenced a generation of ecologists, opening up new avenues of funding and collaboration, forming committees, putting on workshops, and creating reports to advance its agenda. The SBI has brought ecology into the public eye, and today ecologists sit on advisory boards, influencing both corporate and government policies.
Despite such improvements, Lubchenco still believes that the changes that have been made have not kept pace with the growing dangers the planet faces. New campaigns such as the ESA’s Earth Stewardship Initiative, created in 2013, build on the work of the SBI. They hope to effect greater change in the next two decades, so that sustainable development can satisfy humans’ current needs without compromising the needs of future generations.
Wind turbines are explained to young students. The SBI advocates ecological education in schools and universities so that people can learn how to manage and sustain the biosphere.
JANE LUBCHENCO
An acclaimed environmental scientist and marine ecologist, Jane Lubchenco grew up in Denver,
Colorado. She earned a bachelor’s degree in biology at Colorado College, and a Master’s in zoology. She got her Ph.D. in marine ecology at Harvard. She researches the interaction between humans and the environment, with an emphasis on biodiversity, climate change, and oceanic sustainability.
From 2009 to 2013, she served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). She was the first female and the first marine ecologist head of NOAA. In 2011 Lubchenco oversaw the creation of Weather-Ready Nation, a project to prepare the public in case of extreme weather.
Key works
1998 “Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science,” Science
2017 “Delivering on science’s social contract,” Michigan Journal of Sustainability
See also: The ecosystem • Chaotic population change • Gaia • Overfishing • Halting climate change • The economics of climate change • Waste disposal
IN CONTEXT
KEY FIGURE
William Nordhaus (1941–)
BEFORE
1993 In Reflections on the Economics of Climate Change, William Nordhaus summarizes the issues surrounding climate change and the economy, highlighting uncertainties and potential solutions.
AFTER
2008 In Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, Jeffrey Sachs argues that although humanity faces daunting economic crises—including that of climate change—we have the knowledge to address them.
2013 The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World, by William Nordhaus, explains how global warming relates to the world’s economy, and provides ideas for reducing its impact.
Climatology is an uncertain science. Future projections will change, based on human actions and new technology, as well as natural cycles. However, it is vitally important to assess the financial impacts of climate change. Once potential costs are understood, we can explore ways in which to mitigate its direct impacts. It is necessary to consider not only the direct costs—such as damage to property from flooding or fire—but also the costs associated with broader effects, such as a decline in biodiversity, habitat destruction, shifts in growing seasons, and enforced human migration.
Protesters in Lamu, Kenya, in 2018, opposing the construction of a coal-fired power plant. Growing awareness of ecological damage has seen an increase in public disapproval.
Counting the cost
The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a monetary estimate of the damage to human society caused by every additional tonne of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. These damages include reductions in agricultural productivity, harm to infrastructure, energy costs, and impacts on human health. The SCC provides a starting point for energy policy. For example, if the SCC is factored into proposals for a new power plant, the cost of building it becomes much higher. This may also make the cost of alternative forms of energy—such as solar or wind power—more financially viable. However, it is extremely difficult to calculate the SCC.
Forecast models
Economists use several models in order to calculate the SCC. In 1999, William Nordhaus developed RICE (Regional Integrated Climate-Economy model)—a variant of his own preceding DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model), which weighed the costs and benefits of slowing down global warming. The RICE model integrates carbon emissions, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, climate change, damages, and controls that are in place to reduce emissions. The model divides the world into distinct regions for its analysis. It predicts that the combined SCC in 2055 will be between $40–$188 per ton ($44 and $207 per tonne) of carbon dioxide released, depending on the rate of warming and the mitigation policies enacted.
Economic models incorporate assumptions, such as the discount rate. Discount rates prioritize the present over the future, because the future cannot be predicted perfectly. The rate is selected based on how the balance between present and future priorities is weighted. Higher discount rates indicate that future populations will be wealthier, and prepared to deal with climate change. Lower discount rates suggest that the disruption caused by climate change will make people in the future poorer than we are today. Nordhaus suggests a 3 percent discount rate, meaning that if the monetary damages from climate change will be $5 trillion in the year 2100, we could invest $382 billion today to avoid it.
The cost of reducing CO2 increases in line with the quantity, but this is offset by the benefits gained. The lines intersect at the point of equilibrium, where maximum benefits are achieved at the lowest cost.
WILLIAM NORDHAUS
Born in New Mexico in 1941, Nordhaus is a leader in the field of the economics of climate change. He stumbled upon this field of research through sharing an office with a climatologist. Nordhaus’s economic theories—the DICE and RICE models—are widely used to analyze policy decisions. Nordhaus is principally concerned with placing a realistic price on carbon. Today, the social cost of carbon is generally agreed to be around $40 per ton, but Nordhaus’s models show that it should be higher to account for the impacts of climate change. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, and serves on the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Experts and the Brooking Panel on Economic Activity. In 2018, Noordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.
Key works
1994 Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change
2000 Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming
See also: Renewable energy • Man and the Biosphere Programme • Halting climate change
IN CONTEXT
KEY FIGURE
Vandana Shiva (1952–)
BEFORE
1966 A new high-yielding strain of rice known as IR8 leads to a big increase in production in several rice-growing countries. First developed in the Philippines, it is also called “miracle rice.”
AFTER
1994 The World Trade Organization introduces the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.
2004 After protests by farmers who developed the crop, the Monsanto company’s patent on an Indian strain of wheat known as Nap Hal is revoked.
2012 Indian initiative Navdanya International launches its worldwide Seed Freedom campaign to protect food sovereignty and safety.
In 1987, Indian environmental campaigner Vandana Shiva launched a movement to protect native seed diversity in response to changes in agriculture and food production. She founded Navdanya, a nongovernmental organization, to protect agricultural biodiversity from the combined threat of genetic engineering and patents.
Californian rice production is high yield but there are problems with soil salinity. Although salt tolerance can be genetically introduced, traditional rice varieties can be naturally salt-resistant.
Agro-biodiversity
Agricultural biodiversity (also known as agro-biodiversity) has resulted from the selective breeding, over thousands of years, of plants and animals taken from the wild. These practices led to the extraordinary genetic diversity of different breeds of crops and domesticated animals. For example, a grass in the genus Oryza was first cultivated for rice in Asia between 8,200 and 13,500 years ago; today, there are more than 40,000 varieties of this rice in existence. Intrinsic to agro-biodiversity are the many non-harvested species that support production. These include microorganisms in the soil, species that feed on pests, and pollinators. Through the ages, the skills and knowledge of millions of farmers have shaped this biodiversity.
From the late 1960s, a technology transfer to the developing world included high-yield varieties of cereals in association with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, mechanization, and more efficient irrigation. Known as the “Green Revolution,” this transformation shifted the focus of agriculture in the developing world away from biodiversity to higher crop yields. New Green Revolution crops such as “miracle rice” (IR8) boosted production, but there was a downside.
As more emphasis was placed on fewer productive strains, the genetic base of traditional seed varieties for grains, potatoes, fruits, vegetables, and cotton declined.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 75 percent of crop biodiversity has been lost from the world’s fields. Some environmentalists have argued that traditional varieties are more compatible with local farming conditions, cheaper for farmers to use, and more environmentally sustainable than new, high-yield varieties. Additionally, many of the new strains are patented by the companies that created them. Trade deals impose regulations on who can use what. These work against small-scale farmers but favor the powerful agricultural corporations that produce the seed.
“Seed patents threaten the very survival and freedom of peasants … and farmers …”
Vandana Shiva
Seed sovereignty
Shiva argues that rural farms are threatened if the appropriate seed is no longer available. Traditionally, most small-scale farmers routinely save their seed from one harvest to the next. Now, when farmers buy in seed—especially if it is genetically modified—they often have to agree not to save it. Having to buy seed from a company every year can leave them worse off financially.
Shiva criticized the practice of corporations patenting seed varieties as “biopiracy” and set up Navdanya to support “seed sovereignty.” It campaigns for agro-biodiversity via a network of seed-keepers and organic producers and has helped found more than 100 community seed banks, effectively gene banks, where seeds of crops and rare plant species are stored for future use.
