The First Day: Where are we and what do we need to do?
The time for action is now. In fact, one could argue the time for action was many years ago, but since we have thus far proven ineffective at coming to significant global agreements on climate action, the time to do so is now. Today is the first day of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris and many people are looking forward to the next two weeks with much hope and excitement. They are excited to see leadership from the world’s leaders and they hope to read a global plan of action by the end of the conference that will present a positive way forward. Nothing less than our collective future wellbeing is in the balance.
But where are we and what do we need to do? In 2010 at COP16 in Cancun, world leaders agreed to “commit to a maximum temperature rise of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”[1] and for many that has been the target since. That said, getting there will not be particularly easy. To have the best chances of achieving that goal and avoiding many other environmental issues in the future, developed countries would have to discontinue their current trajectories and content themselves with living as they did before industrializing. Basically, those alive now would have to live in the dark to ensure humanity of the future has light.
Outside of reverting back to 200 years ago, what can we do? Or better yet, what are world leaders proposing? Prior to the present conference in Paris, countries developed and presented Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)[2] that indicate what each intends to contribute to a global solution. Proposals vary with each country, but many list specific target dates for starting emissions reductions, as well as certain rates of reduction thereafter. While the individual contribution of each country is important, the overall global result is, of course, more so. Using sophisticated climate modeling programs, the overall results from various national actions can be illustrated.
An easy-to-use model known as C-Roads has been developed by Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan School on Management.[3] Using this model, several scenarios can be analyzed. For now we will look at three cases: business as usual, the results from successful implementation of the INDCs, and what it would take to actually get near two degrees of increase. If we are unable to come to any notable agreements and the world continues on its “business as normal” trajectory, we can expect an average global temperature increase of about 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. If we are able to implement and maintain the reductions proposed in the INDCs, the situation looks a bit better (but not great) with an increase of 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit).[4] So what do we need to do to actually get to 2 degrees Celsius?
It seems an increase of two degrees is still possible, though it would likely be challenging to achieve. The following is a plan that can be easily input into C-Roads and which gets close to the goal: First, all developed countries would stop the growth of their emissions and begin reducing at 5% per year in 2016. Additionally, China, India, and Other Developing Countries would have to hit peak emissions at 2020, 2050, and 2050, respectively, and they would have to start decreasing emissions at 5% per year beginning in 2030, 2050, and 2060, respectively. If countries could find ways to achieve these contributions, the world would likely see a temperature increase of about 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. The following images show the results from inputting these goals into C-Roads.
In light of the INDCs and this particular exercise, one might ask the question: Rather than add up individually determined contributions, why don’t we backtrack from the solution we want to determine what we all individually need to do? Maybe “Intended Cooperatively Determined Contributions” (ICDCs) would be more effective in achieving the two-degree goal. If one believes that a good compromise is one that leaves all parties (slightly) unhappy, it is possible that such a solution could allow slight unhappiness amongst all parties in the short term to sum to a global goal met and long term benefits for all.
Of course there are many challenges in coming up with the breakdown and distribution of responsibilities (fairness, cumulative carbon,[5] human rights, etc), but it may still be an option that policy makers should consider in Paris or in the future. In either case, it is clear that we must do something, and whatever we do needs to be significant. Likely, the people of today will have to decide to forgo immediate selfishness for the betterment of humanity as a whole. Maybe that is what Paris will bring, but alas, it is only the end of the first day — stay tuned.
[1] http://unfccc.int/meetings/cancun_nov_2010/meeting/6266.php
[2] http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php
[3] https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/c-roads/
[4] https://www.climateinteractive.org/project-news/press-release-with-an-ambitious-review-cycle-offers-to-paris-climate-talks-could-limit-warming-below-2c/
[5] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105004
