How a war in Europe brings climate urgency home
-
Ned Temko Columnist
| London
The need to confront climate change is growing more urgent by the month, the latest warning from leading scientists has made clear. And the world’s governments do not seem to be on track to cut their carbon emissions by as much as they need to if global temperatures are to remain manageable.
But a new front is opening in the climate change battle that offers new hope of success. Last week’s landmark report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change homed in on the ways that each of us, as individuals, can limit our use of carbon-heavy energy.
Why We Wrote This
Facing government inaction, scientists are looking to individual citizens to limit their carbon emissions. Many Europeans seem ready to start by doing without Russian gas.
The report focuses on how governments can help individual citizens make green decisions that don’t burden them financially, and in fact make their lives better. That could mean paying people to improve insulation in their homes, for example, or expanding carbon-free public transport networks.
The report got little publicity because of the war in Ukraine. But that war could well reinforce Western citizens’ readiness to go green, and to make the sacrifices that an end to Russian gas would demand, so long as those sacrifices provide their country with greater energy independence and at the same time deny Russian President Vladimir Putin his key financial lifeline.
The need to confront climate change is growing more urgent by the month, the latest warning from leading scientists has made clear. But a new front is opening in the battle that offers new hope of success.
Those are the twin messages of a landmark report last week by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And the even more immediate crisis that pushed the IPCC report out of the headlines, Vladimir Putin’s assault on the civilian population of Ukraine, could ultimately turn out to reinforce this new direction of travel on climate policy.
Why We Wrote This
Facing government inaction, scientists are looking to individual citizens to limit their carbon emissions. Many Europeans seem ready to start by doing without Russian gas.
The climate challenge itself is as daunting as ever.
The increasingly visible effects – melting glaciers, record heat waves, and other “extreme” events such as storms and floods, droughts and wildfires – underline how global carbon emissions are still growing.
And time for effective action is running out, the report warns. To keep temperatures at or around 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, greenhouse gas emissions would have to level out by 2025.
Government action to cut back on fossil fuels will probably not be sufficient to meet that target date. So the new IPCC report puts unprecedented emphasis on other ways of helping to get there; specifically, how each of us, as individuals, can limit our use of carbon-heavy energy.
The report focuses on how governments can help individual citizens make green decisions that don’t burden them financially, and in fact make their lives better. That could mean paying people to insulate their homes better, for example, or expanding carbon-free public transport networks, or establishing more bike lanes and green spaces in towns and cities.
All that would still cost governments money. And even a “demand-assisted” transition from reliance on fossil fuels would almost certainly mean a hit to short-term economic growth. That’s not an easy ask as the world emerges from the economic shock of the pandemic.
Yet with alternative sources of green energy – like wind and solar – already providing the cheapest electricity in many countries, the IPCC is keen to emphasize that the battle against the worst effects of climate change remains winnable.
And potentially, that’s where the horrors being visited on Ukraine by Mr. Putin could prove relevant.
Like so much else about the Ukraine war, the ultimate outcome on the climate change front remains uncertain.
But Western economies, especially major European importers of Russian natural gas such as Germany, have suddenly put energy security at the top of their agendas.
In the short term, that’s not going to mean less fossil fuel use. On the contrary, a move to eliminate, or significantly cut, imports of Russian gas would mean a scramble for pretty much any other energy source to minimize economic disruption.
In Germany, even though Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition includes the Green Party, the government is ready to revive the use of the worst carbon offender, coal, and to reconsider former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shutdown of carbon-free, but politically controversial, nuclear power plants.
In the United States, similarly, the Biden administration has been trying to convince improbable political bedfellows like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to pump more oil to compensate for any reduction in Russian energy supplies.
Still, the longer-term picture may look greener if the current mood in Germany proves to be a signpost.
Chancellor Scholz has so far resisted international pressure for an immediate end to Russian gas imports, arguing that the price for German industry and homes would be too steep.
But polls suggest that most German citizens believe the price is worth paying if it provides their country with greater energy independence and at the same time denies Mr. Putin’s military machine its key financial lifeline.
Like most people in most European countries, they support European Union moves to accelerate the transition to greener energy. And they also recognize that consuming less energy is part of what it will mean to go green.
All of which sounds very much in tune with the new tone of the IPCC, best described at the launch of its report by one of its scientific co-chairs, Priyadarshi Shukla.
The right mix of government policies, infrastructure, and technology to encourage “changes to our lifestyles” could mean a whopping 40% to 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury. “Untapped potential,” he called it.
All that, and rosy cheeks, too. The same lifestyle changes that would combat climate change, Professor Shukla said, would also bring improvements to “our health and well-being.”
