In political discourse and in the news media, there is confusion between pollutants and climate change. Generally speaking, pollutants are controlled substances that are emitted to the local environment (air, soil and water). Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases, of which the most important is CO2, which is not generally considered a pollutant. There are other greenhouse gases, with a more potent climate change impact than CO2, but whose concentration in the atmosphere is much lower than that of CO2. Methane (CH4) is one such greenhouse gas, which is some 27 times more potent than CO2 with respect to climate change. In sum, pollutants affect the local environments, whereas greenhouse gases impact on climate change, a global phenomenon.
The problem posed by climate change is real. The threat is ominous. However the process is slow, but sure and not obvious to the average observer. Humans are wired to respond to immediate threats but have difficulty dealing with a long-term menace.
Compared to pre-industrial days, when the concentration of CO2 was 280 ppm in the atmosphere, we are now at 390 ppm and the average global temperature is 0.8 C higher! Even if we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, the inertia of the process is such that the average global temperature will rise by another 0.5 C. For a total rise of 2.5 C, which could happen if we do not curb emissions, the Amazon forest would be wiped out. And for a 2.75 C rise, 20 to 30 percent of known species would be lost! [1]
The challenge of reducing emissions is sobering: leading scientific models indicate that limiting the rise in global mean temperatures to less than 2 C will require that global greenhouse gas emissions peak within the next 10–15 years and then fall by 2050 to levels about 50 percent lower than in 1990. Although many countries recognize the need to curtail carbon emissions, there is considerable uncertainty about how much this will cost in individual countries, what measures can be undertaken in both the short and longer term, and how cost-effective specific interventions are in reducing emissions. One such intervention is “Low carbon” strategy, which adds an important climatic dimension to the concept of economic sustainability. Another approach is the re-greening of planet Earth.
The solutions to this ominous threat are not simple. Knowledge from science and technology are essential, but not sufficient to solve the problem. The ultimate culprit is the human mind, individual and collective. There is a need to change the mindset, both individual and collective. Evolution has wired humans to respond quickly to imminent danger.
Long-term thinking resides in the pre frontal cortex of the brain. There is a need to make society at large and the whole brain of individuals aware of the slow but relentless progress of climate change. This is why, for instance, so few Americans save for retirement. On the other hand, as the NY Times Op Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote on 2 July 2009, if we can floss our teeth today to prevent decay in the future, why can´t we drive our cars less to save the earth?
A renewed global agreement on Climate Change is part of a political process. To be successful it needs political leadership, which seems absent despite the efforts of some. Such political leadership is the weapon we have to develop political will and change the individual and societal mindset that would result in rewiring the individual, collective and political human brain to make climate change into a visible and recognizable threat that can then be attacked.
On the other hand, the tragedy of these processes is that some participants are “more equal” than others. In diplomacy only a few countries are readily prepared to engage in meaningful negotiations. In the end it is the OECD countries plus Brazil, China, India and Russia, who will play a meaningful role. More than 160 countries will remain bystanders and let the “more equal” countries decide, or not.
Furthermore, current climate stabilization ideas circulating reveal a lack of creative thinking, especially because they ignore the need to change the individual and social mindset. People are resigned to focus technocratic solutions such as cap-and-trade, which is a start but which falls far short of the aggressive measures that the climate problem requires. Furthermore, engagement of the relevant stakeholders is crucial to implementing solutions.
Moving to a “low-carbon” economy could benefit any country in at least four ways[2]:
• There are countries that should participate in international agreements to cap emissions, as they may suffer from consequences such as drought, sea level rise, and increased severity of tropical storms.
• “Low hanging fruits” or “no-regrets” low-carbon approaches (interventions with positive economic rates of return, which should be implemented regardless of climate change) can lead to economic development.
• Many of the “low-carbon” initiatives may generate side-benefits for the countries involved, including enhanced energy security (supply and demand) and renewable energy; the human health benefits from transport and other interventions that reduce local air pollutants; and the environmental improvement that result from forestry and natural resource management, waste-reduction programs, and lower emissions of local pollutants from energy facilities.
•Countries that implement “low-carbon” development, and obtain financial resources via the carbon market and achieve strategic and competitive advantages through new mitigation initiatives.
Another, not mutually exclusive approach to climate change, proposed by Thomas Lovejoy[3], is the re-greening of the emerald planet via proper management of forests, grasslands and agriculture that restores carbon to the soil.
In the hierarchy of solutions, the immediacy of the problem requires grabbing the low hanging fruits such as energy efficiency enhancement and the use of the ability of forests to sequester carbon, and sustainable biofuels, such as sugar cane based ethanol or second-generation biofuels. But, in the end, the sustainability of climate solutions goes well beyond technocratic approaches and requires the support of the relevant stakeholders in each specific situation at hand.
Starting a “low-carbon” pathway and greening the economy globally, most definitely helps meet more stringent targets set by a renewed global agreement on Climate Change, probably the most pressing need of Humankind during the XXI century.
[1] Trindade, Sergio C. (2009). Climate Change and the Copenhagen Process, Remarks at the Business Council for International Understanding at the Board Luncheon, New York City, 3 December.
[2] Johnson, Todd et al. (2010). Low-Carbon Development for Mexico. The World Bank, ISBN-978-0-8213-8123-6 (electronic).
