Climate Change Is Happening. Here's How We Adapt | Alice Bows-Larkin | TED Talks

Summary

In this talk, the speaker emphasizes the collective impact of human actions on climate change and the urgency to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. They highlight the choice between taking climate change seriously to lessen future impacts or facing more severe consequences. The discussion points to the exponential growth of CO2 emissions and the likelihood of a four-degree global temperature rise, which could be catastrophic for infrastructure and food security. The speaker argues for immediate and drastic emission reductions, especially in high-emission countries, suggesting that economic growth may need to be temporarily sacrificed for significant climate action.

Takeaways

• 🌍 **Individual Impact**: Each person's actions contribute to climate change through lifestyle choices, travel, energy use, and overall behavior.
• 🔄 **Opportunity for Change**: Despite past negative impacts, individuals have the power to influence future climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• 🌡️ **Temperature Targets**: Governments aim to avoid a 2°C rise in global temperatures, which is linked to dangerous climate impacts, but current trends suggest a 4°C increase is more likely.
• 📈 **Exponential Emissions Growth**: Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 emissions have grown exponentially, with no significant reduction despite climate agreements and summits.
• 🌆 **Urban Heat Islands**: A 4°C global temperature rise would exacerbate urban heat islands, making cities like Mumbai, Beijing, New York, and London extremely hot and uncomfortable.
• 🌾 **Agriculture and Food Security**: Higher temperatures could reduce crop yields significantly, threatening global food security with potential drops of up to 40% for maize and wheat.
• 🏭 **Infrastructure Challenges**: Current infrastructure, including transportation and power systems, is not designed to withstand the extreme weather and temperatures associated with a 4°C warmer world.
• ⏳ **Urgency and Carbon Budget**: The need to reduce emissions is immediate due to the cumulative nature of greenhouse gases; delaying action will require steeper reductions later.
• 🌱 **Energy System Transformation**: Wealthy nations with high per capita emissions must reduce energy demand and transition to low-carbon energy systems to stay within the carbon budget.
• 🌐 **Global Equity and Well-being**: Addressing climate change requires a balance between improving living standards in developing countries and reducing emissions in developed ones, pointing towards the need for systemic change.

Q & A

What is the significance of the two-degree centigrade warming limit discussed in the script?

The two-degree centigrade warming limit is significant because it is associated with dangerous impacts on humans and the environment. It represents a temperature threshold beyond which the consequences of climate change are expected to be severe and potentially catastrophic.

How does the speaker suggest that our past actions have contributed to climate change?

The speaker suggests that our past actions, including choices about travel, energy use, and lifestyle, have led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which have contributed to climate change.

What is the potential consequence of ignoring climate change as outlined in the script?

Ignoring climate change could lead to adapting to much more powerful climate impacts in the future, which could be devastating for infrastructure, food security, and global organized living.

What does the speaker mean by 'the choice that we don't have, is a no climate change future'?

The speaker means that it is not an option to revert to a world without climate change. The impacts of past emissions are already baked into the system, and the focus should be on mitigating future emissions and adapting to the changes that are already inevitable.

Why does the speaker emphasize the importance of reducing energy demand in wealthy nations?

The speaker emphasizes reducing energy demand in wealthy nations because these countries have high per capita emissions and the infrastructure to rapidly decarbonize may not be deployed in time. Reducing demand can help manage the carbon budget and lessen the need for rapid supply-side changes.

What does the speaker suggest is necessary to avoid the two-degree warming scenario?

The speaker suggests that to avoid the two-degree warming scenario, significant and immediate action is required, including cutting emissions, focusing on energy efficiency and conservation, and possibly adopting planned austerity in wealthy nations.

How does the speaker describe the potential impact of a four-degree global warming scenario on infrastructure?

The speaker describes the potential impact of a four-degree global warming scenario as extremely challenging for infrastructure, which is not designed to cope with such extremes in temperature and weather events, leading to significant disruptions and potential failures.

What is the 'carbon budget' mentioned in the script, and why is it important?

The 'carbon budget' refers to the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted while still having a chance to limit global warming to a specific target, such as two degrees centigrade. It is important because it sets a limit on how much more we can emit without exceeding the target, emphasizing the need for immediate action.

What does the speaker mean by 'whole system change' in the context of addressing climate change?

The speaker means that addressing climate change requires more than just incremental changes; it necessitates a fundamental shift in how we produce and consume energy, how we design and use infrastructure, and how we live our daily lives, including economic and societal transformations.

What is the significance of the historical CO2 emissions graph presented in the script?

The historical CO2 emissions graph is significant as it illustrates the exponential growth of emissions since the Industrial Revolution, highlighting the urgency of addressing climate change and the need to shift away from the current trajectory to avoid severe impacts.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 Personal Impact and Choices on Climate Change

The speaker begins by acknowledging that everyone has contributed to climate change through their actions and choices, which has led to increased greenhouse gas emissions. This thought can induce feelings of guilt, especially when considering decisions about travel, energy use, and lifestyle. However, the speaker posits that this realization can also empower us to influence future climate change by choosing to mitigate our emissions, thus adapting to less severe climate impacts. The alternative is to ignore the problem, which would lead to more drastic climate impacts in the future. The speaker emphasizes that as individuals from high per capita emission countries, our choices have global implications. The discussion highlights the focus of policymakers on avoiding a two-degree centigrade increase in global temperature, which is considered the threshold for dangerous climate impacts. The speaker also addresses the subjective nature of what constitutes 'dangerous' climate change, using the example of how extreme weather events can have varying impacts based on a region's infrastructure and insurance.

05:00

📈 The Exponential Growth of CO2 Emissions and Its Implications

The speaker presents a graph illustrating the exponential growth of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry since before the Industrial Revolution. Despite international meetings and agreements aimed at addressing climate change, such as the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, emissions continue to rise. The speaker notes that current trends suggest we are on track for a four-degree centigrade global warming, which would have severe consequences. The speaker describes the potential impacts of a four-degree warmer world, including extreme heat waves in urban centers, challenges to infrastructure like roads and power stations, and significant threats to global food security with reduced crop yields. The speaker argues that these impacts would be incompatible with organized global living and emphasizes the urgency of immediate action to change our trajectory.

10:00

🔄 The Urgency for Rapid Emission Reductions and Systemic Change

The speaker discusses the importance of immediate departure from the current trajectory towards a four-degree warming scenario to the two-degree pathway, highlighting the concept of cumulative emissions and the carbon budget. The speaker explains that the area under the emissions curve, rather than a specific future date, is critical for staying within the carbon budget. This implies that delaying emission reductions will require steeper reductions later, making the challenge more difficult. The speaker calls for a focus on reducing energy demand through energy efficiency and conservation, especially in high per capita emission countries. The speaker also addresses the intertwined issues of well-being, equity, and economic growth, suggesting that wealthy nations may need to consider planned austerity to reduce emissions significantly. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the need for whole-system change and the importance of individual and collective action to avoid the two-degree scenario and the associated catastrophic impacts.

Keywords

💡Climate Change

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, primarily caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. In the video, the speaker underscores the profound negative impact humans have had on the climate, emphasizing the need for immediate action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the consequences of climate change.

💡Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions are the release of gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the Earth's atmosphere, which trap heat and contribute to global warming. The video discusses the exponential growth of these emissions since the Industrial Revolution and the urgent need to reduce them to avoid dangerous climate change.

💡Adaptation

Adaptation in the context of climate change involves adjusting to actual or expected changes in the climate, such as building infrastructure that can withstand more extreme weather events. The speaker highlights that we have a choice to either adapt to less climate change by reducing emissions or face more severe impacts by continuing with business as usual.

💡Per Capita Emissions

Per capita emissions refer to the average amount of greenhouse gases emitted by each person in a country. The video emphasizes that people living in countries with high per capita emissions, such as North America and Europe, have a greater responsibility and capacity to reduce their emissions significantly.

💡Two-Degree Centigrade Warming

The two-degree centigrade warming is a target set by global policymakers to limit the rise in global average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to avoid dangerous climate impacts. The video discusses the historical efforts to achieve this target and the challenges of staying on this path.

💡Cumulative Emissions

Cumulative emissions are the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted over time. The video explains that because greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for a long time, the area under the emission trajectory curve matters more than the emissions at a specific point in time, emphasizing the importance of immediate action.

💡Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency refers to using less energy to provide the same service. In the video, the speaker argues for a focus on energy efficiency and conservation as a means to reduce the demand for energy and the associated emissions, which is crucial for high-emission countries to meet climate targets.

💡Decarbonization

Decarbonization is the process of reducing or eliminating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from a system or process. The video discusses the necessity of decarbonizing the energy system, which involves transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

💡Food Security

Food security means having access to enough safe and nutritious food to meet dietary needs. The video points out that climate change, particularly under a four-degree warming scenario, could significantly reduce crop yields, threatening global food security.

💡Infrastructure

Infrastructure refers to the basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. The video highlights that current infrastructure, such as roads and power stations, is not designed to withstand the extreme weather and climate impacts expected with significant global warming.

💡Economic Growth

Economic growth is the increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over time. The video challenges the conventional pursuit of economic growth, suggesting that in high-emission countries, it may need to be temporarily exchanged for planned austerity to achieve significant emission reductions and avoid dangerous climate change.

Highlights

Individual actions and choices have contributed to climate change.

The potential to influence future climate change is a powerful thought.

We have a choice to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or face severe climate impacts.

Countries with high per capita emissions are making choices that affect others.

Government negotiators have aimed to avoid a 2-degree Celsius warming above pre-industrial levels.

Dangerous climate change is subjective and can vary based on infrastructure and support networks.

CO2 emissions have been growing exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.

Global efforts have not stopped the rise in emissions despite numerous meetings and accords.

We are on track for a 4-degree Celsius global warming, which would be catastrophic.

A 4-degree Celsius scenario would challenge our infrastructure and food security.

There is still a small chance to avoid the 2-degree Celsius dangerous climate change.

The area under the emissions trajectory curves is more important than a specific date.

Immediate departure from the high emissions trajectory is necessary due to cumulative emissions.

Wealthy nations with high per capita emissions need to reduce energy demand.

Energy efficiency and conservation are crucial for reducing the need for supply-side infrastructure.

Well-being and equity must be considered in the context of global carbon budgets.

Emissions reductions of 10 percent per year are required in wealthy nations to avoid the 2-degree target.

Economic growth may need to be exchanged for planned austerity in wealthy nations to reduce emissions.

Significant lifestyle and systemic changes are needed to avoid the 4-degree Celsius scenario.

There is no time like the present to act on climate change to avoid severe future impacts.

Transcripts

Over our lifetimes,

we've all contributed to climate change.

Actions, choices and behaviors

will have led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

And I think that that's quite a powerful thought.

But it does have the potential to make us feel guilty

when we think about decisions we might have made

around where to travel to,

how often and how,

about the energy that we choose to use

in our homes or in our workplaces,

or quite simply the lifestyles that we lead and enjoy.

But we can also turn that thought on its head,

and think that if we've had such a profound

but a negative impact on our climate already,

then we have an opportunity to influence the amount of future climate change

that we will need to adapt to.

So we have a choice.

We can either choose to start to take climate change seriously,

and significantly cut and mitigate our greenhouse gas emissions,

and then we will have to adapt to less of the climate change impacts in future.

Alternatively, we can continue to really ignore the climate change problem.

But if we do that, we are also choosing

to adapt to very much more powerful climate impacts in future.

And not only that.

As people who live in countries with high per capita emissions,

we're making that choice on behalf of others as well.

But the choice that we don't have

is a no climate change future.

Over the last two decades,

our government negotiators and policymakers have been coming together

to discuss climate change,

and they've been focused on avoiding a two-degree centigrade warming

above pre-industrial levels.

That's the temperature that's associated with dangerous impacts

across a range of different indicators,

to humans and to the environment.

So two degrees centigrade constitutes dangerous climate change.

But dangerous climate change can be subjective.

So if we think about an extreme weather event

that might happen in some part of the world,

and if that happens in a part of the world where there is good infrastructure,

where there are people that are well-insured and so on,

then that impact can be disruptive.

It can cause upset, it could cause cost.

It could even cause some deaths.

But if that exact same weather event happens in a part of the world

where there is poor infrastructure,

or where people are not well-insured,

or they're not having good support networks,

then that same climate change impact could be devastating.

It could cause a significant loss of home,

but it could also cause significant amounts of death.

So this is a graph of the CO2 emissions at the left-hand side

from fossil fuel and industry,

and time from before the Industrial Revolution

out towards the present day.

And what's immediately striking about this

is that emissions have been growing exponentially.

If we focus in on a shorter period of time from 1950,

we have established in 1988

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

the Rio Earth Summit in 1992,

then rolling on a few years, in 2009 we had the Copenhagen Accord,

where it established avoiding a two-degree temperature rise

in keeping with the science and on the basis of equity.

And then in 2012, we had the Rio+20 event.

And all the way through, during all of these meetings

and many others as well,

emissions have continued to rise.

And if we focus on our historical emission trend in recent years,

and we put that together with our understanding

of the direction of travel in our global economy,

then we are much more on track

for a four-degree centigrade global warming

than we are for the two-degree centigrade.

Now, let's just pause for a moment

and think about this four-degree global average temperature.

Most of our planet is actually made up of the sea.

Now, because the sea has a greater thermal inertia than the land,

the average temperatures over land are actually going to be higher

than they are over the sea.

The second thing is that we as human beings don't experience

global average temperatures.

We experience hot days, cold days,

rainy days, especially if you live in Manchester like me.

So now put yourself in a city center.

Imagine somewhere in the world:

Mumbai, Beijing, New York, London.

It's the hottest day that you've ever experienced.

There's sun beating down,

there's concrete and glass all around you.

Now imagine that same day --

but it's six, eight, maybe 10 to 12 degrees warmer

on that day during that heat wave.

That's the kind of thing we're going to experience

under a four-degree global average temperature scenario.

And the problem with these extremes,

and not just the temperature extremes,

but also the extremes in terms of storms and other climate impacts,

is our infrastructure is just not set up to deal with these sorts of events.

So our roads and our rail networks

have been designed to last for a long time

and withstand only certain amounts of impacts

in different parts of the world.

And this is going to be extremely challenged.

Our power stations are expected to be cooled by water

to a certain temperature to remain effective and resilient.

And our buildings are designed to be comfortable

within a particular temperature range.

And this is all going to be significantly challenged

under a four-degree-type scenario.

Our infrastructure has not been designed to cope with this.

So if we go back, also thinking about four degrees,

it's not just the direct impacts,

but also some indirect impacts.

So if we take food security, for example.

Maize and wheat yields

in some parts of the world

are expected to be up to 40 percent lower

under a four-degree scenario,

rice up to 30 percent lower.

This will be absolutely devastating for global food security.

So all in all, the kinds of impacts anticipated

under this four-degree centigrade scenario

are going to be incompatible with global organized living.

So back to our trajectories and our graphs of four degrees and two degrees.

Is it reasonable still to focus on the two-degree path?

There are quite a lot of my colleagues and other scientists

who would say that it's now too late to avoid a two-degree warming.

But I would just like to draw on my own research

on energy systems, on food systems,

aviation and also shipping,

just to say that I think there is still a small fighting chance

of avoiding this two-degree dangerous climate change.

But we really need to get to grips with the numbers

to work out how to do it.

So if you focus in on this trajectory and these graphs,

the yellow circle there highlights that the departure

from the red four-degree pathway

to the two-degree green pathway is immediate.

And that's because of cumulative emissions,

or the carbon budget.

So in other words, because of the lights and the projectors

that are on in this room right now,

the CO2 that is going into our atmosphere

as a result of that electricity consumption

lasts a very long time.

Some of it will be in our atmosphere for a century, maybe much longer.

It will accumulate, and greenhouse gases tend to be cumulative.

And that tells us something about these trajectories.

First of all, it tells us that it's the area under these curves that matter,

not where we reach at a particular date in future.

And that's important, because it doesn't matter

if we come up with some amazing whiz-bang technology

to sort out our energy problem on the last day of 2049,

just in the nick of time to sort things out.

Because in the meantime, emissions will have accumulated.

So if we continue on this red, four-degree centigrade scenario pathway,

the longer we continue on it,

that will need to be made up for in later years

to keep the same carbon budget, to keep the same area under the curve,

which means that that trajectory, the red one there, becomes steeper.

So in other words, if we don't reduce emissions in the short to medium term,

then we'll have to make more significant year-on-year emission reductions.

We also know that we have to decarbonize our energy system.

But if we don't start to cut emissions in the short to medium term,

then we will have to do that even sooner.

So this poses really big challenges for us.

The other thing it does is tells us something about energy policy.

If you live in a part of the world where per capita emissions are already high,

it points us towards reducing energy demand.

And that's because with all the will in the world,

the large-scale engineering infrastructure

that we need to roll out rapidly

to decarbonize the supply side of our energy system

is just simply not going to happen in time.

So it doesn't matter whether we choose nuclear power

or carbon capture and storage,

upscale our biofuel production,

or go for a much bigger roll-out of wind turbines and wave turbines.

All of that will take time.

So because it's the area under the curve that matters,

we need to focus on energy efficiency,

but also on energy conservation -- in other words, using less energy.

And if we do that, that also means

that as we continue to roll out the supply-side technology,

we will have less of a job to do if we've actually managed

to reduce our energy consumption,

because we will then need less infrastructure on the supply side.

Another issue that we really need to grapple with

is the issue of well-being and equity.

There are many parts of the world where the standard of living needs to rise.

Bbut with energy systems currently reliant on fossil fuel,

as those economies grow so will emissions.

And now, if we're all constrained by the same amount of carbon budget,

that means that if some parts of the world's emissions are needing to rise,

then other parts of the world's emissions need to reduce.

So that poses very significant challenges for wealthy nations.

Because according to our research,

if you're in a country where per capita emissions are really high --

so North America, Europe, Australia --

emissions reductions of the order of 10 percent per year,

and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance

of avoiding the two-degree target.

Let me just put that into context.

The economist Nicholas Stern

said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year

had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval.

So this poses huge challenges for the issue of economic growth,

because if we have our high carbon infrastructure in place,

it means that if our economies grow,

then so do our emissions.

So I'd just like to take a quote from a paper

by myself and Kevin Anderson back in 2011

where we said that to avoid the two-degree framing of dangerous climate change,

economic growth needs to be exchanged at least temporarily

for a period of planned austerity in wealthy nations.

This is a really difficult message to take,

because what it suggests is that we really need to do things differently.

This is not about just incremental change.

This is about doing things differently, about whole system change,

and sometimes it's about doing less things.

And this applies to all of us,

whatever sphere of influence we have.

So it could be from writing to our local politician

to talking to our boss at work or being the boss at work,

or talking with our friends and family, or, quite simply, changing our lifestyles.

Because we really need to make significant change.

At the moment, we're choosing a four-degree scenario.

If we really want to avoid the two-degree scenario,

there really is no time like the present to act.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Bruno Giussani: Alice, basically what you're saying,

the talk is, unless wealthy nations start cutting 10 percent per year

the emissions now, this year, not in 2020 or '25,

we are going to go straight to the four-plus-degree scenario.

I am wondering what's your take on the cut by 70 percent for 2070.

Alice Bows-Larkin: Yeah, it's just nowhere near enough to avoid two degrees.

One of the things that often --

when there are these modeling studies that look at what we need to do,

is they tend to hugely overestimate how quickly other countries in the world

can start to reduce emissions.

So they make kind of heroic assumptions about that.

The more we do that, because it's the cumulative emissions,

the short-term stuff that really matters.

So it does make a huge difference.

If a big country like China, for example,

continues to grow even for just a few extra years,

that will make a big difference to when we need to decarbonize.

So I don't think we can even say when it will be,

because it all depends on what we have to do in the short term.

But I think we've just got huge scope, and we don't pull those levers

that allow us to reduce the energy demand, which is a shame.

BG: Alice, thank you for coming to TED and sharing this data.

ABL: Thank you.

(Applause)