The world appears to have finally woken up to the existential threat of global warming, and the drive to fix the problem is accelerating across the board.
The planet’s biggest carbon polluters — China, the US and the EU — vow carbon neutrality by the middle of this century. Solar and wind power continued to surge even as global GDP shrank 5 percent last year. Two-thirds of humanity see a “climate emergency.” A top-five automaker says that it would only make zero-emissions vehicles after 2035. Major investors recoil from coal, while fossil fuel companies shrivel in value.
Climate action cheerleaders are past masters at stringing together whatever signs of progress are at hand to conjure a glass half full, so good news laundry lists must be viewed skeptically.
There are arguably just as many reasons for pessimism.
Last week, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that — net-zero promises notwithstanding — “governments are nowhere close to the level of ambition needed to limit climate change to 1.5?C and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
The 2015 treaty calls for capping global warming at “well below” 2?C compared with preindustrial levels, and the world is currently on track for double that.
On Tuesday, the International Energy Agency reported that global carbon emissions have returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels, and then some.
However, in all sectors — energy, industry, geopolitics, finance and public opinion — a flurry of activity has experts wondering whether the world is, at long last, turning the corner on climate.
“Is the pendulum swinging hard in the right direction? Absolutely,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at New York University. “In the US, it’s Washington, it’s Detroit, it’s Silicon Valley, it’s Wall Street. They didn’t wait for one another, it is all happening at the same time.”
The term for this sunny scenario is “social tipping point,” defined as a threshold leading irreversibly to a new state or paradigm, whether it be a shift to meat-free diets or — the ultimate goal — a global carbon-neutral economy.
Or electric vehicles (EVs): A decade ago, they barely registered in terms of market share, and a rapid phaseout of the internal combustion engine seemed chimerical. Today, the EV revolution is well underway and, by most accounts, unstoppable.
Leading the charge is Norway, where EVs accounted for 54 percent of new vehicle sales last year — three-quarters if plug-in hybrids are included in the tally.
The only other country in double digits is Iceland, and globally the EV market share last year was less than 5 percent.
“A global tipping point will come when EVs cost the same to manufacture as conventional cars,” said Tim Lenton, an Earth system scientist at the University of Exeter and lead author of recent research that takes Norway’s EV saga as a case study on tipping points.
Rapid uptake is also helped by an about-face in consumer attitudes from wariness to wanting what others have, an example of “social contagion,” he said.
By itself, Norway would never move the dial on global carbon emissions, but its pathbreaking example — including a ban on new carbon polluting vehicles after 2025 — has an outside influence and adds to gathering global momentum, Lenton and others say.
The UK and California are to only allow the sale of emissions-free vehicles from 2035, while China — already the largest EV market in the world — has said that it would ban petrol and diesel-fueled vehicles from that date.
Industry has its leaders, too. Last month, General Motors, the world’s fourth-biggest automaker, announced that it would only sell emissions-free vehicles starting in 2035.
The soaring share value of EV pure player Tesla in January made its chief executive officer Elon Musk the richest person in the world.
“To see it coming both from the government side and from major auto companies, this really signals that change is coming,” Lenton said.
Sometimes a “critical minority” is enough to lock in a tipping point, which can occur before its broader impact is visible, he added.
Grassroots pressure on fund managers and their clients to unload fossil fuel stocks is a text-book example, said Ilona Otto, head of the social complexity and system transformation research group at the University of Graz’s Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change.
“In the beginning, it does matter why they do it, but later it matters less,” said Otto, lead author of a study on the social tipping dynamics needed to stabilize Earth’s climate by 2050. “Simulations show that if about 9 percent of investors divest, the rest will follow suit because they will be afraid of being left behind and losing money.”
The climate divestment movement, intertwined with social justice goals, can be compared to the drive to abolish slavery in the late 18th and early 19th century, she said.
Both involved deeply rooted economic systems that resisted change, and in the case of chattel slavery, a long unchallenged system came unraveled quickly and was soon seen as morally indefensible, Otto said.
“We will get to a point where it will seem as unthinkable to use fossil fuel energy as it is to have slaves,” she said.
Meanwhile, the grassroots global climate movement that surged onto the world stage in 2019 — led, in part, by a then-16-year-old environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg — is still gaining momentum, even if a raging pandemic has obscured its scope.
“Concern about the climate emergency is far more widespread than we knew before,” said Stephen Fisher, a sociologist at the University of Oxford who helped design a survey of 1.2 million people across 50 countries. “The large majority of those who do recognize a climate emergency want urgent and comprehensive action.”
Beyond morality, there comes a point in major social transitions when rejecting the “status quo” and adopting new norms becomes the most rational option economically.
Referring to US states with Republican-led governments, James Williams, a professor at the University of San Francisco, said that “even in red states, solar panels are popular.”
Not long ago, the Chinese government viewed the concept of carbon neutrality as an economic burden, Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Eco-civilization Studies director Pan Jiahua (潘家華) told the Atlantic Council last month.
However, today “we have a consensus that it’s an opportunity for employment, growth, and the transformation of society,” Pan said.
Part of this expanding consensus recognizes that powering the world economy with fossil fuels is no longer compatible with civilization as we know it.
However, that hard truth clashes with another: Coal, oil and gas still account for nearly 85 percent of global energy supply and are subsidized to the tune of US$500 billion every year for consumers and producers, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data showed.
How that tension would be played out — and how quickly — remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt that fossil fuel companies are feeling the heat.
“The cyclical shock of COVID has brought forward a structural peak in emissions, which was going to happen anyway,” Carbon Tracker senior energy analyst Kingsmill Bond said. “Before the crisis, renewables had almost reached a tipping point and now, in future, all growth in demand for energy can be satisfied with renewable sources.”
“As soon as this happens, you by definition get peak fossil fuel demand, and therefore peak emissions,” he said, raising the possibility that 2019 — the last year unaffected by the COVID-19 crisis — might be that peak.
Ultimately, the separate strands of climate action must coalesce into a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts whole.
“A synergy is needed for large-scale change to unfold,” said Jonathan Donges, coleader of the FutureLab of Earth Resilience in the Anthropocene at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Social tipping points have an evil twin in the climate system, where Lenton and other Earth system scientists have identified 15 temperature trip wires for irreversible and potentially catastrophic change.
A world that has warmed 2?C above preindustrial levels could push the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and the western Antarctic — with enough frozen water to lift oceans 13m — past a point of no return.
Other tipping points could see the Amazon basin turn from tropical forest to savannah, billions of tonnes of carbon leech from Siberia’s permafrost and the disappearance of the polar ice cap in summer.
Taken together, these changes could punch a one-way ticket to what scientists call “hothouse Earth,” a profoundly inhospitable state the planet has not known for tens of millions of years.
“Of course there’s a fundamental difference between ice sheets and social systems,” Lenton said. “We have the foresight to change our course of action.”
In a very real sense, humanity is in a race it cannot afford to lose.
“If we want to avoid the bad tipping points, we need to trigger the good, or social tipping points,” Lenton said. “We have left it too late to tackle climate change incrementally.”
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS