According to the latest report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s main scientific authority on global warming, keeping global temperatures from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is a feasible goal. The IPCC’s stance represents a move in the direction of the kind of “radical realism” that many civil society actors have long advocated.
The IPCC does not bet on geo-engineering proposals — for example, deep-ocean sequestration of massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or “dimming the sun” by spraying the atmosphere with aerosols — to combat global warming. These largely theoretical solutions could have untold consequences for people and ecosystems, worsening not only the climate crisis, but also the other social and ecological crises we face.
Instead, the IPCC focuses on how we can avoid crossing the 1.5°C threshold in the first place. We must, it asserts, decarbonize the global economy immediately to ensure that global carbon dioxide emissions decline by about 45 percent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.
Achieving this would require not just transforming economic activity, but also confronting destructive power dynamics and social inequalities.
Radical Realism for Climate Justice, a new anthology published by the Heinrich Boll Foundation, sets out strategies developed by international civil society and social movements to bring about such change.
In line with the IPCC’s core message, we urgently need a politically managed decline in fossil fuel production. This means putting a brake on oil, coal, and gas production and exploration.
As the group Oil Change International says, it does not mean abrupt or panicked action that could lead to a “sudden and dramatic shut-down of fossil fuel production, stranding assets, damaging economies, and harming workers and communities reliant on the energy sector.”
In building up the renewable energy sector, we should avoid replicating systems that have driven inequality and entrenched damaging power dynamics in the fossil fuel sector and other industries. This means replacing the market-based, investor-focused approach to energy production with one that treats energy as a public good, while engineering a shift toward social ownership and management of energy supplies.
Rooted in energy sovereignty and self-determination, this approach would spur faster decarbonization, including by weakening vested interests’ power to resist change. It would also facilitate the restructuring of energy systems to serve social and ecological needs.
Another system-level transformation that would facilitate major emissions reductions would be the creation of a zero-waste circular economy, whereby everything we produce and consume returns safely to nature or is recycled and reused.
Consider textiles production, which in 2015 generated greenhouse gas emissions totaling 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents.
These massive emissions — more than the combined total for all international flights and maritime shipping — reflect a “fast fashion” culture that produces garments as cheaply as possible, with the expectation of constant turnover in people’s wardrobes. If each garment were replaced half as often, the industry’s total greenhouse gas emissions would plummet by 44 percent.
A zero-waste circular economy for textiles would include not just more use of the clothes that are produced, but also improved recycling and repurposing of materials, to avoid emissions-producing waste disposal processes such as incineration. The biggest gains would come from the introduction of less wasteful production processes.
Important steps should also be taken regarding land use, encompassing agriculture and zoning changes.
As the international peasant’s movement La Via Campesina shows, the industrial food system’s emissions — including those from production, fertilizers, transport, processing, packaging, cooling and food waste, as well as from deforestation associated with the expansion of industrial agriculture — account for 44 to 57 percent of the global total.
A peasant agroecological production system based on food sovereignty, small-scale farming and agroecology could, La Via Campesina says, halve carbon emissions from agriculture within a few decades.
This approach is proven to work: small-scale farmers, peasants, fishers, indigenous communities, rural workers, women and youth already feed 70 percent of the world’s population, while using only 25 percent of its agricultural resources.
There is also a need to restore natural ecosystems that have been destroyed. Forests and peatlands, in particular, can sequester several hundred gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Their restoration would protect not just biodiversity, but also local people, including the indigenous communities whose land-tenure rights have been systematically violated.
Retaining and expanding the land area under management by indigenous peoples and local communities could protect more than 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide worth of carbon stocks.
According to a report by the Climate, Land, Ambition, and Rights Alliance, ecosystem-based approaches in the land sector and agroecological changes to food production and consumption systems — including more local ownership — could deliver 13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in avoided emissions, and almost 10 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually in sequestered carbon by 2050.
The result would be 448 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in cumulative removals by 2100 — about 10 times present global annual emissions.
Limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is our best hope of containing the effects of a climate crisis born of historical injustices and deep-rooted inequities.
The only way to succeed would be to undertake a shift to a new socioeconomic system. This means abandoning the single-minded obsession with GDP growth — which has facilitated the proliferation of wasteful production and consumption patterns and fueled economic and social inequality and injustice — in favor of a public goods approach that serves genuinely to make people’s lives better.
Demanding such a transformation is not “naive” or “politically unfeasible.” It is radically realistic. It is the only way we can achieve social justice, while protecting our environment from devastating climate change.
Barbara Unmussig is president of the Heinrich Boll Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath