Achieving The Paris Climate Agreement

Product details

Brief introduction to the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and its main goals, followed by the project background, motivation and objectives. Presentation of the specific research questions for the energy and climate scenario development. Short overview of published 100% renewable energy scenarios and the main differences between those scenarios and the newly developed 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C scenarios presented in the book. Overview about the basic assumptions in regard to technology preferences in future energy pathways. Discussion of the advantages and limitations of scenarios in the energy and climate debate.

In October of 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its starkest warning yet: we have around 12 years to avoid the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. The consumption of fossil fuels, the reckless destruction of forests and other natural ecosystems, and the release of powerful greenhouse gases have already caused around 1.0 °C of warming above preindustrial levels.

Continuing at the current rate, we are likely to reach 1.5 °C by 2030 – and all the evidence suggests that a world beyond 1.5 °C is not one we want to live in. While making the 2016 documentary film, Before the Flood, I witnessed firsthand the impacts of an already-changing climate: the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic Circle, massive bleaching of coral reefs in the Bahamas, and rampant deforestation in Indonesia and the Amazon. Better than ever, we understand the heartbreaking impact of human activity on our natural world. It is estimated, for example, that 60% of animals have been wiped out since 1970.

Higher temperatures and extreme weather events will cause ever more severe harm to biodiversity and ecosystems and even greater species loss and extinction. And when we lose biodiversity, we lose resilience. Currently, natural ecosystems absorb about half of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. If we continue to degrade the natural world, we could lose completely the Earth’s ability to adapt to climate change.

A passion for nature conservation and animal protection has driven much of my foundation’s work over the past 20 years. Ultimately, however, the climate crisis is a humanitarian one. If business-as-usual continues, the impact on human beings will be immeasurable. Water supplies will become more insecure. Sea level rise will profoundly impact islands, low-lying coastal areas, and river deltas. Small island communities like those I visited in the South Pacific are already preparing for migration to safer lands. Fatal floods, droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires are the new normal, and happening closer to home. An estimated 41 million Americans live within a 100-year flood zone. Texas saw its third 500-year flood 3 years in a row.

Poor air quality is a public health emergency across the world and now the fourth-highest cause of death – contributing to strokes, heart attacks, and lung cancer – causing public unrest in countries like China and India, where the poorest find themselves at the mercy of pollution from industrial facilities and the burning of biomass. In states like Texas, Colorado, and North Dakota, communities are fighting back against gas drilling operations near playgrounds or soccer fields, where children breathe in poisonous gases. These health impacts are only part of the story. Climate change, as the US Pentagon notes, is a national security threat. In a 2017 report by the Environmental Justice Foundation, senior US military experts pointed to the likelihood of tens of millions of climate refugees displaced by extreme weather – in a world already struggling with a refugee crisis. We already know that many conflicts are driven by environmental factors and access to natural resources. The truth is that, where ecosystems collapse, societies collapse too.

Politically, there has been a monumental failure to grasp the scale of this problem. Climate scientists still face disinformation campaigns and a press corps that often draws a false equivalence between those who support the scientific consensus for human-caused climate change and those who do not. Surveys suggest that most Americans do not know a scientific consensus exists, and scientists like Michael Mann, who spoke to me for Before the Flood, face abuse for exposing the truth. As a result, scientific research programs, critical to better understanding and addressing climate change, are often attacked or defunded.