The cost of inaction is high when it comes to
climate change and, so far, countries’ commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions are not enough, says Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
In an exclusive interview with IPS during the “Our Common Future Under
Climate Change” scientific conference being held in Paris (Jul. 7-10) at UNESCO
headquarters, Jarraud said that “we need more ambitious commitments before
getting to Paris” for the U.N. Climate Conference in December, adding that
climate change should be included in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
currently being worked out.
“Climate change is about much more than temperature,” he added.
Q: Will this scientific meeting help to build the path towards a
solid Conference of the Parties (COP21) agreement in Paris December?
A: Every six years the scientific community reviews the state of
knowledge about climate and this is what we call the IPCC [Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change] assessment report. The latest report was finalised a
year ago, so in order to prepare for the next COP in Paris it was important to
update it so that decision makers and negotiators have access to the very latest
information. One of the roles of this conference is to get scientists together
and also get a closer interaction between scientists and decision makers.
Q: Do you think a Paris deal will be possible as a way of braking
global warming?
A: We have to look at it as a process. Many people remember
Copenhagen in 2009 and say it was a failure but it was a place where the 2°C
objective was set up. Every COP is going one step further in defining the
objectives but also addressing solutions.
What is going to be decided in Paris is hopefully an ambitious plan to
reduce significantly the emissions of GHGs and what will be reduced over the
next 20, 30 and 40 years.
Countries were asked to pledge what they are willing to do and over which
time scales. So far the pledges are not enough for 2°C but we hope this will
accelerate. We can see countries are coming on board with significant
commitment. We hope that in Paris we will be as close as possible to this
objective. I am confident there will be progress.
Q: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says that Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are not enough to meet the world’s
target.
A: At this stage the INDCs are not yet enough. He [Ban Ki-moon] says
to member states that we need more ambitious commitment before Paris. We still
have time, we still need to accelerate and go further. China has recently
announced its commitment. If we don’t get enough in Paris to stand at 2°C, it
means we will have to reduce [emissions] further and faster afterwards.
Q: You have said there is an “adaptation gap”: In which
way?
A: There are two facets of the climate negotiations and one is what
we call mitigation. It is important to reduce GHG emissions as much as possible
and as fast as possible so that we minimise the amplitude of the climate
change.
As a number of GHGs have already been in the atmosphere for a long time, it
means we already committed to some amount of global warming. Therefore we need
to adapt to the consequences such as sea level rise, impact on crops, on health
and on extreme weather events.
Developed and developing countries don’t have the same financial, human and
technical capacity to adapt. How can we bridge this gap by making sure there are
appropriate technology transfer and financing mechanisms? This is one of the
difficult parts of the negotiations. We need to address that as a
priority.
Q: Is the Green Climate Fund (GCF) enough to fill the finance
gap?
A: The fund has had a pledge of over 10 billion dollars. The
objective by 2020 is to reach a funding stream of about 100 billion dollars per
year. We are still in the early phase of that and hopefully in Paris there will
be an acceleration towards identifying possible sources of financing.
The key is to see this finance not as an expense but as an investment. The
cost of doing nothing will be more than acting. On a longer time scale, the cost
of inaction is actually bigger, and we and maybe our children and grandchildren
will have to pay more later.
Q: What are the main concerns of scientists regarding the impacts
of climate change worldwide?
A: It is about much more than temperature. It impacts the
hydrological cycle – for example, more precipitation in places where there is a
lot already, less in places that are very dry. It will amplify this water cycle,
so the regions that are already under water stress will have more droughts and
heat waves and, vice-versa, there will be more floods in regions that already
have too much water. There will be an impact on extreme weather events, like
heat waves which are becoming more frequent and intense, and tropical cyclones
and typhoons.
Q: Is there any particular region in the world about which
climatologists are most concerned?
A: Extreme events can set the clock of development back in several
years. Sea level rise in small islands is a very big concern in the Indian
Ocean, the Pacific and the Caribbean, as well as coastal areas. In countries
with big deltas like the Nile or in Bangladesh, sea level rise will increase the
vulnerability of these countries enormously.
Elsewhere, the risk of desertification will increase in several sub-Saharan
regions, some parts of Latin America, Central Asia and around the Mediterranean
basin. Many countries will be affected in different ways. Temperature is only
part of the equation, because the increase of the 2°C will not be uniform. The
warming will be higher over continents and oceans, it will be greater at higher
altitudes.
One of the challenges is to translate this large-scale global scenario for
regional and national levels. It is still a scientific challenge.
Q: Should climate change be included in the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs)?
A: You cannot have any sustainable development if you don’t take into
account climate damage. What is being proposed right now for the SDGs is that
climate is a factor that should be considered for almost all the individual
proposed goals.
Q: Is there a disconnection between science and policy-making
when it comes to climate change?
A: Yes, but less than there used to be. Decision-makers are taking
the information provided by scientists more seriously. This is based on the fact
that the scientific consensus is huge. There are still a few sceptics but
essentially the scientific community is almost unanimous.
Most scientific questions have now a clear answer. Is climate changing?
Yes, without any doubt. Is it due to human activities? Yes, with a probability
of more than 95 percent. However there are still a few other questions that
require more scientific research. The knowledge base is incredibly solid but we
want to understand more and go even further.
(othernews)
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni