Challenging Climate Change

The IPCC 2018 special report on 1.5°C comes at the request of a number of vulnerable nations made at the time the 2015 Paris Agreement was reached. The report compared the effects of warming at 1.5°C with 2°C. The report interpreted the existing body of scientific literature (6000 studies reviewed by 91 experts from 40 countries) using a consensus-based approach and so this means it adopts a fairly conservative bias to describe the impacts of climate change.

“For some people this is a life-or-death situation without a doubt,” said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, a lead author on the report.

Much of the planet and its people, today and in the future, are going to experience significant climate impacts—including worsening drought, water scarcity, flooding, heat waves and wildfires—even if we succeed in reducing emissions. The task ahead for the world's survival is clear: cut emissions as much as possible  Future generations depend on the choices we will make today. The scientific consensus is that we cannot afford to delay action for very much longer.  Current emissions reduction pledges are not enough to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement. The only way out of runaway global warming is for nations of the world to come together to tackle the climate crisis. We already have the technical know-how to limit emissions such as low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar energy. and expanding carbon-friendly re-forestation and management of land use practices. We’ll possess the technologies and processes to decrease reliance of fossil fuels in the transportation and industrial sectors. We can also development and deploy next generation solutions, battery storage, carbon capture and sequestration, safe nuclear power, off-the grid electricity generation to increase energy access for the millions of people in the world who still don’t have access to modern energy services. The choices we make now daunting and  they may come with adverse unintended consequences.

 Earth’s weather, health and ecosystems would be in better shape if we could somehow limit future human-caused warming to just 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (a half degree Celsius) from now, instead of the globally agreed-upon goal of 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C). Among other things:
— Half as many people would suffer from lack of water.
— There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases.
— Seas would rise nearly 4 inches (0.1 meters) less.
— Half as many animals with back bones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats.
— There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts.
— The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting.
-  And it just may be enough to save most of the world’s coral reefs from dying.

Limiting warming to 0.9 degrees from now means the world can keep “a semblance” of the ecosystems we have.  The world has already warmed 1 degree C since pre-industrial times, so the talk is really about the difference of another half-degree C or 0.9 degrees F from now.

“Global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate,” the report states.
The pledges nations made in the Paris agreement in 2015 are “clearly insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 in any way,” one of the study’s lead authors, Joerj Roeglj of the Imperial College in London, said.
“I just don’t see the possibility of doing the one and a half” and even 2 degrees looks unlikely, said Appalachian State University environmental scientist Gregg Marland, who isn’t part of the U.N. panel but has tracked global emissions for decades for the U.S. Energy Department.


The various COPs have failed to make any significant progress and it could be said that they are mere forums for empty rhetoric, intended to put a PR gloss on government actions which in reality are making the problems worse. Leaving the problems to capitalist politicians can only be a recipe for disaster. The problems are global, and that global consensus is required for action on a global scale. What dooms them to failure is the fact that they take place in a world that is divided into rival capitalist states which are in economic competition with each other. This makes global consensus impossible and rules out an effective global action. The pressures to keep down costs and protect profits means that the technology for reducing carbon emissions is either ignored or applied in a minimal token way. It is reckless to gamble with an existing balance of natural systems on which all life depends. The basic cause of global warming is the capitalist system. The problem is out of control because the economic constraints of the system prevent the problems from being solved. A sane society would simply consider the technical options available. Then, following democratic decisions on the actions to be taken would do what was necessary to achieve the solutions. This rational procedure is impossible in the mad world of capitalism. The twin priorities of a socialist world community, if it existed, might have to be to move as quickly as possible to a technological structure with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions and to embark on a diverse and environmentally acceptable geo-engineering projects, if indeed such a programme could be found and implemented.


The plain fact is, before we can work within natural systems in a non-destructive way we must first create a society in which we can all co-operate with each other. The freedom to do this can only be achieved through the relationships of socialism.  Humanity will have learned to address its collective destiny - and to share the planet.