We must play our part in the climate change war
OVER the last week or so, many readers may have been too busy with other matters, particularly to do with Christmas, to notice the reports regarding the tortuous UN negotiations in Poland on required measures to tackle climate change.
The conference eventually agreed a text that contains most of the ‘rulebook’ needed to guide countries towards the implementation of the 2015 Paris climate goals.
The Paris Agreement had set out a global action plan to put the world on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below a 2C increase above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5C.
This is despite the fact that it is accepted that we are facing a global warming, in a ‘do-nothing’ scenario of a 3C-to-3.5C rise by 2100, which, it is accepted, will mean regular catastrophic extreme weather.
While the present, and indeed next, generation may feel that they need not worry about this, it is an incontrovertible fact that our children’s children will be faced with huge climatic problems, unless we do something about it.
Even the most sceptical person regarding climate change must accept that there is an ‘appalling vista’ ahead for the world, in the not-too-distant future.
The current citizens of the world have a duty to ensure that we heed the warnings in order to leave this planet in a state whereby future generations can live without constant catastrophic weather events.
Indeed, if something dramatic is not done in the relatively near future, we could come to a situation whereby large tracts of the world will become uninhabitable, leading to mass movements of migration with huge knock-on effects for the future viability of the world.
Readers may feel I’m being alarmist about this, but a cursory read of a recent UN climate change report, which draws on more than 6,000 research papers, clearly warns that we need to do a lot more than we are doing in order to halt dramatic rises in temperatures.
IT suggests that we are close to reaching a tipping point, from which there is no going back. It states that a 2C rise, as opposed to 1.5C, will lead to more heat waves, extreme rainstorms, water shortages and depletion of major crops. The wellrespected natural historian David Attenborough warned at the conference of the collapse of civilisation if the world did not change its ways.
Frighteningly, he gave the view that ‘if we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon’.
This year was the fourth hottest on record, with extreme weather affecting every continent.
The difference between a rise of 1.5C and 2C is that the Arctic is forecast to be ice-free in summer, once a century, at 1.5C, whereas it will happen every decade if warming climbs to 2C.
To achieve the 1.5C target alone, the world will need to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, with other dramatic cuts in greenhouse gases such as methane. Far more electricity generation from solar and wind sources will be required. Transport, buildings and industry will also have to dramatically change their focus on to reduction in carbon emissions.
The main problem in getting worldwide agreement is that it involves achieving this amongst nearly 200 countries, big and small, with hugely different problems. Historically, a number of the large polluting countries have refused to make changes to reach even basic targets.
The fact that, in recent times, Donald Trump has railed against climate science has helped these countries to become even more lethargic in their response. Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for instance, succeeded in preventing the Polish conference from fully embracing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report results.
Following the conclusion of the Polish meeting, the EU has agreed to slash carbon emissions from new cars by 37.5% by 2020. New vans will have to be 31% lower in 2021, while there is an interim target of a 15% cut for both cars and vans by 2025.
It is hoped that the new law will mean that by 2030, around onethird of new cars will be either electric or hydrogen powered. It’s expected that the EU will come forward with proposals soon in the much more difficult area of truck emissions.
As a former minister with responsibility for energy, I have always been conscious that the EU is continuously the ‘best pupil in the class’, in that its member states are always striving to reach the recommended targets, while some of the larger polluter countries, such as China and India, are doing little or nothing in this regard.
A number of member states within the EU constantly pose the question: why should we take all of this relative pain, while greater offenders were snubbing their noses at the scientific data?
Closer to home, over the last two decades, Ireland has endeavoured to do its bit.
However, during the Celtic Tiger, we had difficulty in that we were chasing a moving target because of our rapidly rising economic situation.
Ironically, during our recession, we were getting closer to meeting the targets, because of the slowdown in our economy. It seems now, yet again, because of our rising growth, we are encountering difficulties in achieving EU targets, which means that we are coming out at the lower end of the ‘league table’.
Quite apart from the emissions from our transport sector, which represent 21% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, we have the added issue of emissions from our large agriculture industry, at over 29%.
In fairness to us, we are a tiny cog in a massive worldwide problem. Having said that, we should not abdicate our responsibility by throwing our hands in the air and saying: how can a small country like Ireland make any difference?
While the EU targets for transport emissions are extremely onerous, there is an ever-increasing opportunity for individuals in their daily lives to do their bit.
Recently, I spoke to a friend of mine, Tony Toner, who is an advanced driving instructor and motor journalist, and he convinced me that the way forward in the transport industry is the greater use of electric vehicles.
Because of this, I am considering buying a zero-emission, all-electric car, replacing my diesel vehicle. Like many people, I purchased a diesel car a number of years ago, believing the generally accepted view that diesel was a better option than petrol.
We now find that diesel cars are not as environmentally friendly as we thought. The emissions scandal affecting some of the major vehicle manufacturers has dented our belief in this regard.
ITOOK the opportunity recently to test-drive a Nissan Leaf, and, to say the least, I was bowled over by the overall drive, and also by the fact that it is a pure all-electric car, with no emissions. And this car, with the help of a €5,000 sustainable energy grant, is no more expensive than a standard petrol or diesel mid-range family car.
I’m under no illusion that buying such a vehicle is a risk. Indeed, some of my family members are surprised that someone like me – who is normally risk averse – is considering taking this plunge.
And yet, I feel I have to do my bit to help reduce carbon emissions.
The EVs are a relatively new phenomenon, and take some getting used to.
Given the relatively smaller distance span, one has to plan the journey, but with ever-increasing charging points around the country, this shouldn’t be a problem.
Indeed, I’ve spoken to someone who travels around the country for his job in an EV, and he told me that, with proper planning, he can do his business while saving hundreds of euros, thanks to not having to pay for diesel or petrol.
Given the EU drive to get car buyers to move to electric vehicles, any doubts I may have had regarding resale have been assuaged by his experience.
While I’m only a very small drop in the ocean, and while Ireland, equally, is relatively insignificant in the drive against climate change, I believe we have, in a small way, to do our bit to ensure future generations can enjoy our world in the way we and previous generations have enjoyed it.