Real World and COP21 Reality: Wishful Dreams for Adults

'If wishes were horses, beggars would ride' is a sobering nursery rhyme giving perspective on the three wishes that have been expressed in the UNFCCC draft report from COP21 in Paris. World leaders gather to wish around three options for global warming: (1) a target of 2 degrees centigrade, (2) a target of 1.5 to 2 degrees centigrade, or (3) a target of less than 1.5 degrees centigrade. As noted by The Economist and Bjorn Lomborg, even if all fossil fuels were immediately outlawed, the CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. All nations must come to adult and scientific awareness that we are on a likely trajectory of greater than 2 degrees C. We had better learn to cooperate through all means available to help cope with the global changes and do our best to help those people, regions, and countries who are the most vulnerable. Food security, refugee pressures, and increased weather disasters are on the horizon. COP21 means that we must now act like global adults, after 21 we are adults not children. And yet we must consider the children, now and over the horizon.

The Draft Paris Outcome recently released is just that  - a draft. All of the most contentious topics - 1.5 or 2C as the target, climate financing (the "Green Climate Fund"), regular updates of climate action pledges, and so on - are listed as "options" in the draft outcome document. This reminds us of a very important point - the Paris COP21 meeting is just one of many COP meetings, and many other climate events, on a much longer process of dealing with the climate change challenge. In fact, the Paris COP meeting can already be considered a success. National pledges have never been as ambitious, and civil society has never been as vocal and well-organised to drive the  transformation we need

The draft UNFCCC report from the Paris Climate talks indicate a widespread agreement on the need for nations to work together to avoid the 2 degree threshold of dangerous climate change. This suggests that science has been to some degree successful in demonstrating the seriousness of this global problem, while recognising the uncertainty in our scientific knowledge. From a precautionary perspective, the alternative option to keep temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees is more desirable, but undeniably more difficult.

The important thing about this Paris statement is that for the first time, nations are acknowledging that the question of climate change is one which addresses the viability of our own life support system. This is long overdue, and the output of this meeting may be a genuine turning point in human history, where we actually take some responsibility for our actions, and the environmental and ecological impacts they are having.

Further to the significance of the wording in the complex legal agreement, it is clear that the agreement between the parties is conditional on “the effective implementation by developed country Parties”. This highlights where first responsibility lies, in terms of carbon emission reductions, mitigation and financing. This provides some optimism that, with proper measures in place, the agreement may be operationally feasibly and politically implementable.

In particular, if we can agree on a robust and reliable environmental accounting system as outlined in Clause 10 of the draft agreement, we will be on the right path towards genuine (and accountable) sustainable development.

Some aspects of the climate system will continue to change on very long time-scales even if temperatures are stabilised at less than 2°C above pre-industrial. Many glaciers, such as those of the northern Andes, have already reached a threshold of no return; and most of the ice in other vulnerable mountain regions, such as Scandinavia, western North America and New Zealand, will melt over the next few hundred years even if the 2°C target is met.  Parts of the ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland may already have begun irreversible melting at today’s temperatures. This risk becomes more certain as temperatures rise even at levels 1.5°C above pre-industrial. There is already a committed sea-level rise of around 1 metre and, although this will not be reached for several hundred years, it cannot be reversed. With additional warming, further irreversible ice sheet thresholds may be passed, contributing several metres or more to sea level on a time-scale of up to a thousand years.

Implications of COP21 for agriculture

Of the 160 country-specific Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) submitted prior to the summit, 80% include mitigation targets and 64% include adaptation strategies for the agricultural sector specifically. This means that globally there will need to be a significant increase in the research effort to provide agriculture with profitable adaptation and mitigation options, to improve sustainability and food security. 

The protection of food security is a core objective of the UNFCCC and, while the global climate agreement reiterates this strongly, it is not prescriptive about how agriculture will be supported. That will be left up to individual countries and international research organisations (e.g. CGIAR), the UN-FAO and non-government organisations. In turn, these R&D organisations will be increasingly looking to their governments, the Green Climate Fund and other philanthropic funds like the Gates Foundation to fund the research, development, translation and education required. Invariably, the majority of this funding will be focused towards developing countries where the need for food security is greatest, with a focus on smallholder farmers (as they feed 80% of the world’s population) and an increasing focus on reducing food waste. 

One of the COP21 side events focused on ‘Tackling short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) to raise ambition’. Livestock methane (one of the main SLCPs) will receive an increasing focus into the future, with the energy and transport sectors transitioning to alternative technologies, leaving livestock methane as one of the largest emissions sources. Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of carbon dioxide for the 12 years it lasts in the atmosphere; which is why it is classed as a SLCP. This SLCP event aimed to bring additional pressure to bear on industries and sectors responsible for SLCP gases, as any change in these emissions will have a more immediate impact on reducing the impact of climate change. 

The draft Paris climate change agreement emphasises the role of education and training in achieving a reduction in carbon emissions. One way to do this is with the provision of education and training, via the Internet, particularly to developing nations. Government administrators and those in industry who have to implement carbon reduction strategies will then know how to do it.

Developed nations can assist by providing course materials free online.

An example is "ICT Sustainability: Assessment and Strategies for a Low Carbon Future". The Australian Computer Society commissioned me to write this course in 2008. It has been run by the Australian National University for seven years. The course materials are upgraded each year and made available under an open access license, so any institution is free to use it worldwide.

For 2016 the course is being upgraded to be delivered using low cost mobile devices and smart phones in developing nations.

The UNFCCC’s draft agreement from COP21 in Paris for a protocol or legal instrument is, by definition, couched in detailed legal terms. Once finalised, successful communication of the Paris outcome in plain language will be vital. Clear communication will promote public support and ownership of this historic agreement and the consequent global effort required to reach agreed targets. Strong communication always lies at the heart of effecting significant change.

We ought to welcome the draft agreement’s canvassing the adoption of 1.5°C target. Yet, Australia’s transition strategy has a long way to go if we are to meet targets mooted in the draft agreement.

The draft agreement notes with concern (Art 17) that that much greater GHG reduction effort on the part of countries is needed to achieve our carbon budget targets.

For Australia, this means substantially lifting our reduction targets in the short and medium term. Concretely, this means that we cannot continue to rely on coal and other fossil fuels for our energy needs, nor can we, in good conscience, export them to other countries.

Instead, as the draft agreement emphasises, we ought to greatly expand our research and transfer of renewable technologies. Such as response is consistent with the focus on a just transition urged by the Agreement.

The latest draft does not yet resolve how loss and damage will be addressed. In particular, some states are pushing for the creation of a climate change displacement coordination facility to help coordinate efforts to address displacement, migration and planned relocation associated with the impacts of climate change.

This presents one of the largest humanitarian challenges of this century. The importance of forward-planning and coordinated action was recognised by over 110 States in October, when the Nansen-Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement, of which I was a part, launched its Protection Agenda in Geneva. Preventative measures are crucial; preparing for disasters now can help build resilience and alleviate future displacement crises.

Given the longer term growing importance of the agricultural sector to our national economic future and its increasing vulnerability to negative climate change impacts, regional Australia has a particular stake in seeing the draft UNFCCC framework translated into an agreement that delivers a less than 1.5°C increase in global warming.

Climate change subverts the resilience of regional economies and communities and will add substantially to our national economic and social costs if effective action is not taken.

Over the next few days in Paris, decisions will be taken that will impact for good or worse in the years ahead in communities across Australia.

This is the most comprehensive framework developed under the UNFCCC to date. As such, it acknowledges the enormity of the task ahead and provides the scope to undertake that task.

There is much still to be done. Both targets and mitigation pathways are still open to options that are yet to be decided, including committing to avoiding 2°C or 1.5°C, whether 2050 or 2100 dates should be nominated for decarbonisation targets and whether such targets should explicit or implicit.

The stocktake mechanism is a significant development. There is a level of disagreement over the level of compliance it should carry for developed and developing countries. The stocktake will need to be comprehensive – the text says this: It shall do so in a comprehensive and facilitative manner, considering mitigation, adaptation and the means of implementation and support, and in light of the best available science [and equity]. The proposed date is 2023 or 2024, which gives some time to decide what should be counted and what does not need to be. It will be critical to explore, develop and implement potential methods and tools before then, because both the rate of climate change and of technology development require us to be conscious of how the world is tracking. This is a lead time of seven or eight years and every bit of it is needed. There will be another IPCC report within that time, which will have to carry out much of the groundwork based on the knowledge that can be gathered. Researchers will need to get on to this as fast as they can, governments will need to support that effort, and civil society will need to be engaged. On the ground experience in implementing both adaptation and mitigation, in financing and technology transfer will need to be included.

Agreements on damage and loss still need to be worked out – so while the agreement has a broad mechanism for this, what it will actually contain remains to be worked out. We will see considerable losses continue to emerge, and understanding how to manage these is crucial.

My view is that which of the still to be decided options are chosen does not matter so much, as does finalising this draft agreement and getting onto developing the work plans this agreement will require.

The draft report shows a couple of ambitious goals, however they are not strictly binding as promised, there are always alternative options that softens these, e.g.

(1)   On the hold of increase of global temperatures, below 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level is the preferred option, rather than 2 degrees.

(2)   On the mitigation, a non-targeted long-term global low emission over the course of this century is offered, rather than toward achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

Emphasis is placed on food production systems up front in the draft report, reflecting a broader global renaissance in public appreciation of the importance of agriculture. But there are two risks with how it is framed.

First, highlighting agriculture only in relation to food production and global hunger imposes a productivist rather than livelihoods agenda.

Second, by highlighting the 'particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change', the massive role that the whole agriculture-food system can and needs to play in mitigation and carbon sequestration is obscured.

Third, the privilege afforded to 'technology development and transfer' in the report implies that this is the primary route to change. But it is well known that such a linear, top-down approach is often unhelpful relative to more context-specific and holistic approaches that appreciate existing expertise and the diverse values agricultural systems can provide.

The global climate cares not for country borders, political wrangling, nor financial constraints, and will respond to increased carbon dioxide levels as per climate physics. Any agreement to reduce CO2 emissions trumps no agreement, but the more ambitious the emissions reduction target the better off we will all be.

All the research on climate change has shown that the effects of climate change are exponential, that is small increments have increasingly greater impacts when we move further away from the current climate.

It is therefore exciting to see that the 1.5°C limit is now firmly on the agenda. This is a significant change since the last meeting. Clearly globally, climate change mitigation has been elevated in importance. This matches the changed public debate in Australia.

From a science perspective, the language in Article 3 focusses on measurable and reportable mitigation, while in the adaptation (Article 4) the strengthening of scientific knowledge is stressed. This is important to maintain the integrity of the climate change negotiation and management process.

From a global water security point of view, the 1.5°C limit is important, as it will help limit the impact on vulnerable communities, such as in semi-arid Australia, relative to the higher limit. The effects of drought in Australia are significant and have been shown to have impacts well beyond the farm gate.