When “Code Red” climate risks encounter political risks, which one prevails?Chat with Ian Bremer

• The Paris goal cannot be achieved; what to do?
• Dual requirements-reducing global emissions and local vulnerabilities
• Bonus video: IPCC scientists call for process changes

It felt like another pollution story at the time. Although it was large in scale, it was generally believed that the tools we deployed to control acid rain (regulation and technology) and protect the ozone layer (treaty and better chemistry) would apply.

Fossil fuel companies correctly Being laughed at, and Taken to court, In them Lies and procrastination tacticsHowever, from a personal perspective, there are greater obstacles to climate action at all levels (Status Quo Bias~) To the huge fossil power structure and norms established by modern society and industry influence (try Uninvented suburbs), to the intertwined political, strategic, and economic battles among global leaders. For them, climate action is still a “force” brewing in a series of urgent real-time issues.

That’s why I took the opportunity to explore with Ian Bremmer what this new scientific report might change, except Another corresponding author, Is a political scientist, writer, president and founder of the global political risk consulting company Eurasian Group, and Guangze Media (The name is derived from Bremmer’s paper, which is a new A global order is about to emerge After the influence of individual big countries or groups such as G7 and G20 ends).

This is our digital conversation.

What’s new in this latest report?

I’m on one postal On monday and live Today, but here are some key points. Compared with the basic science of climate change when the last such assessment was issued in 2013, this 42-page summary and more than 3,000 pages of detailed information strongly advance the picture of human damage to the climate. Models and methods have been improved. Over the years, additional observations of past and present ocean, climate, and land conditions have accumulated. New concepts have entered the foreground—especially “combined” threats, such as the simultaneous high temperature and drought. Contrary to belief ten years ago, the report states that every incremental step to avoid new endothermic emissions is a step towards slowing overall long-term warming. (As you pointed out, this does not mean that we are likely to be close to the Paris goal.) At the same time, sea level brings more lock-in changes.But as with warming, ambitious emission control will By 2100, it will have a major impact on coastal damage.

What’s not new is that the working group I report on is itself Not enough For use by decision makers or anyone looking for ways to reduce risk or slow warming.

As an informed climate observer and political analyst, what do you think?

My first positive conclusion is that climate change science has finally reached an overwhelming consensus.Of course, “fixed science” is a contradiction, but we are at a point where almost no one seriously denies the existence of climate change. It is mainly man-made, and it is a “Code Red” threat. In my opinion, the second good news is that science has become better, which means that the accuracy of model predictions has increased and the uncertainty has decreased. This is useful because it allows us to plan only for what may happen.

The place of disagreement, of course, is at least the climate practice of the Eurasian Group and myself, which is about whether the world can effectively limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial level. In view of recent history and political realities, we believe that the IPCC report is too optimistic about this situation. Perhaps they are not overly optimistic. This statement is a tactical statement, a way to avoid complacency. There must be a lot of political capital invested in the 1.5 degree target. Anyway, I think it is foolish to aim at an impossible target. Our best case is to control global warming at 2.5 degrees Celsius. This is a significant decline, but the world it portrays is still more dangerous than it is today.

I have already pointed out what I call “Reality gap” Looking at the IPCC and others aimed at eliminating “Emissions Gap” The relationship between countries’ climate commitments and the temperature thresholds they promised to avoid under the Paris Agreement. This is one reason why I have little confidence that the world will limit warming anywhere near these goals. So I very much agree with the assessment of Eurasia Group. But this is the reporter’s point of view. What is the core of your analysis?

For starters, 1.5 degrees Celsius is based on all Countries do their best. The United States and the European Union are (more or less) on track—the challenge is to convince China, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, and other large low- and middle-income countries to follow suit. But when they look at industrialized countries, they will find that not only are they responsible for the vast majority of emissions in history to make them rich, but their per capita carbon emissions are still much higher than them. The hypocrisy is obvious. However, in the final analysis, the climate does not care about fairness and fairness. Only the total emissions are calculated. Yes, rich countries should bear the largest cost of carbon abatement, but it is also obvious that the decarbonization campaign that does not include China and India is doomed to fail. I don’t want these countries to be able and willing to participate in this transition at the required level and speed without substantive assistance.

This brings me to the second reason for pessimism. The United States and the European Union have the resources and capabilities to help developing countries quickly decarbonize. In order to compensate them for the lost development gains of burning coal for decades. Mobilize the huge power of its financial markets, central banks, regulatory agencies and business communities to serve the global green transformation. They have no political space to do so. In the United States, political failure, polarization, and — frankly — the lack of broad popular support limits the Biden administration’s ability to lead the world not only at home. The situation in the EU is better, but it is also bound by internal differences and lacks the scale to act on its own in any case.

But let us stay away from decarbonization for the time being. In your work, you have been urging people to pay more attention to what we can do to reduce climate vulnerability on the ground, not just reduce emissions. Now, you are not saying that reducing emissions is irrelevant. It’s just that all the focus and coverage have been alleviated, and the real low-hanging fruit is to be prepared. But the two are not mutually exclusive, we should definitely do both. Am I right?

If there is no active work now to reduce exposure and vulnerability to climate hazards (reducing poverty, promoting access to safe housing and land, and restricting dangerous development models) and reducing heat absorption and emissions to prevent the danger itself from worsening (extreme heat, floods, seas, etc.) Plane rise, etc.).
But establishing a dual narrative is still a huge challenge.For most of my 34 years (and counting) Climate report, I (like most of my peers) are attracted by a narrative that puts changes in the climate system and global warming in the foreground. This is partly because I first came here as a science writer, and climate change science is a very interesting and significant science. Part of the reason is that the global warming problem is generated around the existing pollution problem template, and the solution is at the source-chimneys and exhaust pipes. We did not use gas masks to solve the smoke problem. Part of the reason is that huge, powerful companies are an easy enemy. Environmental organizations raise funds around these frameworks and develop and grow, and journalists like me have also flourished. Of course, it is much more complicated than this.Just like me wrote On Monday, “The Chinese Communist Party elite did not leap this vast country to the top of the global emitters list because of the lies of the fossil industry.”

Many political and cultural factors have been highly concerned about reducing climate warming emissions at the source, rather than reducing distributed climate risks. This ignores the proven scientific evidence that the increase in losses and damage caused by climate-related disasters in recent years is still mainly due to the increase in ground exposure and deep vulnerability, rather than some changes in the disaster itself.

Even if the world suddenly discovers the willingness to take active mitigation measures starting tomorrow, this will not help tens of millions of people, who will continue to face the sometimes fatal climate damage until these emissions reductions substantially reduce climate hazards. Does that take at least 15 to 20 years? Or is it already locked in danger for the next 30-40 years? Psychologically and politically, I think this will make a big difference in the world.

Also make sure to watch and weigh the valuable Columbia Climate School Sustain What webcast I just ran:”Human’s Code Red”-what now? Meet the IPCC scientists who solved the problem. “Watch below or above LinkedIn, Twitter Either Facebook.