SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters - professors and climate academics amongst them.(Photo: @IPCC_CH/Twitter)
What Does Science Demand? A Global Energy Transformation With Focus on Inequality of Consumption
Until human society is prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2°C
Oct 09, 2018
The University of Manchester's Professor Kevin Anderson responds to today's report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report meticulously lays out how the serious climate impacts of 1.5degC of warming are still far less destructive than those for 2degC. Sadly, the IPCC then fails, again, to address the profound implications of reducing emissions in line with both 1.5 and 2degC. Dress it up however we may wish, climate change is ultimately a rationing issue.
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters - professors and climate academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon emissions arise from the activities of around 10% of the global population, increasing to 70% of emissions from just 20% of citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita carbon footprint of the top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that of an average European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by one third in a matter of a year or two.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan.
Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead to constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much later in the century, when today's senior scientists and policy makers will be either retired or dead. Conjuring up such futuristic 'negative emission technologies' to help achieve the virtually impossible 1.5degC target is perhaps understandable, but such intergenerational buck-passing also dominates the IPCC's 2degC advice.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully decarbonised energy system. No more second or very large homes, SUVs, business and first-class flights, or very high levels of consumption. Instead, our economy should be building new zero-energy houses, retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of public transport, and a 4-fold increase in (zero-carbon) electrification.
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for poorer countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further for the UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2degC the maths points to such nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040, with poorer nations following suit a decade later. For 1.5degC, such 'real' 2degC mitigation will need to be complemented with planetary scale negative emissions. Whilst the IPCC's 1.5degC report rightly emphasises the urgent need to research these speculative technologies, it continues to run scared of the economic elephant dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more generally) are prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2degC - bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3degC, 4degC or even higher.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Kevin Anderson
Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at The University of Manchester.
The University of Manchester's Professor Kevin Anderson responds to today's report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report meticulously lays out how the serious climate impacts of 1.5degC of warming are still far less destructive than those for 2degC. Sadly, the IPCC then fails, again, to address the profound implications of reducing emissions in line with both 1.5 and 2degC. Dress it up however we may wish, climate change is ultimately a rationing issue.
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters - professors and climate academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon emissions arise from the activities of around 10% of the global population, increasing to 70% of emissions from just 20% of citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita carbon footprint of the top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that of an average European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by one third in a matter of a year or two.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan.
Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead to constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much later in the century, when today's senior scientists and policy makers will be either retired or dead. Conjuring up such futuristic 'negative emission technologies' to help achieve the virtually impossible 1.5degC target is perhaps understandable, but such intergenerational buck-passing also dominates the IPCC's 2degC advice.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully decarbonised energy system. No more second or very large homes, SUVs, business and first-class flights, or very high levels of consumption. Instead, our economy should be building new zero-energy houses, retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of public transport, and a 4-fold increase in (zero-carbon) electrification.
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for poorer countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further for the UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2degC the maths points to such nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040, with poorer nations following suit a decade later. For 1.5degC, such 'real' 2degC mitigation will need to be complemented with planetary scale negative emissions. Whilst the IPCC's 1.5degC report rightly emphasises the urgent need to research these speculative technologies, it continues to run scared of the economic elephant dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more generally) are prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2degC - bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3degC, 4degC or even higher.
Kevin Anderson
Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at The University of Manchester.
The University of Manchester's Professor Kevin Anderson responds to today's report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report meticulously lays out how the serious climate impacts of 1.5degC of warming are still far less destructive than those for 2degC. Sadly, the IPCC then fails, again, to address the profound implications of reducing emissions in line with both 1.5 and 2degC. Dress it up however we may wish, climate change is ultimately a rationing issue.
The responsibility for global emissions is heavily skewed towards the lifestyles of a relatively few high emitters - professors and climate academics amongst them. Almost 50% of global carbon emissions arise from the activities of around 10% of the global population, increasing to 70% of emissions from just 20% of citizens. Impose a limit on the per-capita carbon footprint of the top 10% of global emitters, equivalent to that of an average European citizen, and global emissions could be reduced by one third in a matter of a year or two.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan.
Ignoring this huge inequality in emissions, the IPCC chooses instead to constrain its policy advice to fit neatly within the current economic model. This includes, significant reliance on removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much later in the century, when today's senior scientists and policy makers will be either retired or dead. Conjuring up such futuristic 'negative emission technologies' to help achieve the virtually impossible 1.5degC target is perhaps understandable, but such intergenerational buck-passing also dominates the IPCC's 2degC advice.
To genuinely reduce emissions in line with 2degC of warming requires a transformation in the productive capacity of society, reminiscent of the Marshall Plan. The labour and resources used to furnish the high-carbon lifestyles of the top 20% will need to shift rapidly to deliver a fully decarbonised energy system. No more second or very large homes, SUVs, business and first-class flights, or very high levels of consumption. Instead, our economy should be building new zero-energy houses, retrofitting existing homes, huge expansion of public transport, and a 4-fold increase in (zero-carbon) electrification.
The Paris Agreement notes how it will take a little longer for poorer countries to fully decarbonise, raising the bar still further for the UK, USA and other wealthy nations. Even for 2degC the maths points to such nations moving to zero-carbon energy by 2035-2040, with poorer nations following suit a decade later. For 1.5degC, such 'real' 2degC mitigation will need to be complemented with planetary scale negative emissions. Whilst the IPCC's 1.5degC report rightly emphasises the urgent need to research these speculative technologies, it continues to run scared of the economic elephant dominating the room. Until the IPCC (and society more generally) are prepared to acknowledge the huge asymmetry in consumption and hence emissions, temperatures will continue to rise beyond 1.5 and 2degC - bequeathing future generations the climate chaos of 3degC, 4degC or even higher.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.