Setting Some Expectations for the Glasgow Climate Change Summit

• Author: Bob Sussman
• Position: Principal of Sussman and Associates, an environmental consulting firm
• Pages: 23-23

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 | 23

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, November/December 2021.

Copyright © 2021, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Our Climate Future

AS WORLD leaders assemble in

Scotland for the 26th Confe-

rence of the Parties to the

UN climate convention, the enormity

of the threat has never been greater.

“Human-induced climate change is

already aecting many weather and

climate extremes in every region across

the globe,” according to the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With increa sing condence, the

science is telling us that these extreme

events are linked to rising levels of

greenhous e gases in the atmosphere

and increasing temperatures. Ac cord-

ing to the IPCC, average global tem-

peratures are now 1.5°

C above 1850-1900

values. We thus have

already exceeded the

2015 Paris Agreement

target for avoiding

the worst impacts of

climate change, and

damaging warming-related extremes

are likely inevitable however much we

reduce emissions.

Should we admit defeat and aban-

don our eorts to reduce emissions?

We can’t aord to.

e sobering reality is that, as emis-

sions increase, the world will get hot-

ter, and climate-related impacts will

get much worse. e IPCC says that

there is “high condence” in “a near-

linear relationship between cumulative

anthropogenic CO2 emission s and the

global warming they cause” and that

“[p]rojected changes in extremes are

larger in frequency and intensity with

every additional increment of global

warming.”

e more deeply we cut emissions,

the more we can moderate the scale

and severity of damage from climate

change. According to the IPCC, if we

reach zero net emissions by 2075, the

temperature increase by 2100 would

be only 1.8° C. But if we do nothing,

global temperatures will most l ikely rise

by 4.4° C by 2100. Even if we achieve a

75 percent reduction by the end of the

century, temperatures will still rise by

2.7° C.

Obviously, the globe will be better

o by reducing net emissions to zero

but is that realistica lly achievable in the

next few decades?

Heading into the Glasgow COP,

the UN reported that the National

Determined Contributions of the 191

parties to the Paris Agreement would

increase global emissions by 16 per-

cent in 2030 compared to 2010 levels.

A similar ana lysis by the International

Energy Agency projects stead ily declin-

ing emissions in advanced economies

but strong emissions

growth in developing

countries , leading to

rising emissions overall

through 2045. ere is

no doubt that we have

the technologies to re-

verse these trends a nd

drive down emissions, but ending the

long hegemony of fossil fuels will take

time and massive resources.

e gap between the lofty goa ls of

the Paris Agreement and the unim-

pressive progress of the global economy

toward meeting these goals si x years

later underscores the daunting chal-

lenge facing world leaders in Glasgow.

Rearming a mbitious targets that are

not being met would be a hollow ges-

ture — but pushing countries toward

aggressive commitments that wi ll dra-

matically bend the emission cur ve by

2030 may be a largely futile exercise.

e struggle of the Biden administra-

tion to deliver on the president’s 50-52

percent emission reduction target for

2030 is a timely reminder that ambi-

tious rhetoric on climate change has

rarely been matched by political wil l.

is reality was largely obscured

by the Paris accord, which produced

a new architecture for setting national

emission goals, seeming a greement on

the imperative of avoiding unsafe in-

creases in global temperatures, and a

Setting Some Expectations for the

Glasgow Climate Change Summit

Bob Sussman is principal

of Sussman and A ssociates , an

environmental consulting firm.

bobsussman1@comcast.net,

closer convergence between developed

and developing countrie s. However,

Glasgow won’t be able to repeat these

accomplishments and may instead lay

bare the practical politica l and eco-

nomic obstacles to rapid reductions.

Aspirat ional emission re duction

goals are eective in marshalling

public support. However, goals that

are unachievable — such as prevent-

ing temperature increases above 1.5°

C — may create unrealistic expecta-

tions that we can succeed in st aving o

climate change. is may cause us to

deny the inevitability of increasingly

severe climate events as global tem-

peratures continue to rise.

Up to now, our response to these

events has been to spend more money

to ght forest res, provide disaster re-

lief, and strengthen ood control in

vulnerable area s. But these short-term

measures sidestep the dicu lt choices

society will have to make as climate

impacts worsen.

Will the California C entral Valley

be unable to sustain the hig h levels of

agricultural production that are criti-

cal to the U.S. food supply? As water

levels in the Colorado River drop, do

we need to restrict population growth

in booming areas of Ar izona and Ne-

vada? As storms and oodi ng become

more intense, will it become impos-

sible to protect Southern Lou isiana ?

Is it time to stop rebuilding other

ooded are as and relocate vulnerable

businesses and communities? We

need to have these painful conversa-

tions before it is too late.

Unachievable goals

create unrealistic

expectations that we

can stave off warming