快猫短视频

CHILLING might be the wrong word, but it is certainly a stark message that appears towards the end of our special report on the latest climate change science: if we do too little, too late, and Earth鈥檚 climate feedbacks work against us, many children today could live to see 5掳C of global warming or more.

As this week鈥檚 equally stark cover image of global temperature anomalies last month shows, in some parts of the world at some times, we are already there. Global warming is the greatest existential challenge of our age 鈥� perhaps of any age, measured by the scale of the societal changes necessary to mitigate it and adapt to it. Time is running out to do that 鈥� and the latest science isn鈥檛 panning out in our favour.

So the stakes couldn鈥檛 be higher for the UN COP26 climate summit, due to be co-hosted by the governments of the UK and Italy in Glasgow this November. The global community needs to finally come good on commitments made in Paris in 2015, and agree how to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, thus limiting climate change to a nominally 鈥渟afe鈥� level of 2掳C, and ideally 1.5掳C.

There are positives to be stressed. Carbon emissions aren鈥檛 rising as fast as they would have been if no action had been taken. Countries such as the UK, which in 2019 became the first major economy to write a commitment to reaching net zero by mid-century into law, have made great strides in decarbonising their power supply. As UN chief climate diplomat Patricia Espinosa notes in our interview, the commitment by China, the world鈥檚 largest climate polluter, to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 would have been unimaginable just a year ago. After four lost years, the US is fully on board once again.

Although no one would have wished it on anyone, the covid-19 pandemic has also shown how great societal changes can happen rapidly when humanity recognises a real and present danger. And it displayed the power of science and technology to supply solutions.

But covid-19 also lays bare the sheer scale of the climate challenge. To meet net zero, we must cut emissions by 45 per cent by 2030. We are on track to manage just 0.5 per cent. We now need pandemic-sized emissions cuts 鈥� but permanent ones that build year on year.

Decarbonising electricity is the easy part. The path to net zero now means tackling harder-to-abate sources of emissions, including from transport, home heating, industry, farming and land use.

鈥淭he path to net zero now means tackling harder sources of emissions from transport, home heating and farming鈥�

Many politicians seem still in denial about what that requires. The UK鈥檚 position demands special scrutiny, given its role at the heart of global climate diplomacy. Its laudable net-zero goal and global engagement stand against contradictory domestic policies, from a self-declared 鈥渂iggest ever鈥� road-building programme to perennial delays to green construction standards.

Ignorance is no longer any excuse. Nor is the argument that economies can鈥檛 bear the costs of the climate transition. Green investment is a job creator, and the biggest costs will come down the line to those who fail to invest in a climate-secure future. We need only look to the multitrillion-dollar cost of covid-19 to see the huge consequences of failing to act on scientific warnings and invest in resilience.

It would be unfair to just blame politicians. Research has shown that, in the UK at least, most legislators acknowledge the need for climate change action, but feel little pressure to act on it.

Climate change isn鈥檛 a problem we can expect someone else to fix. If the richest 10 per cent of global citizens, a group that includes many reading these pages, were to adopt lifestyle changes now to reduce their emissions to the level of the average European 鈥� a comfortable, privileged way of life 鈥� that would cut emissions by a third, most of the way to our 2030 goal.

That means more than dutifully separating out the recycling and buying low-energy light bulbs. It means ceasing wherever possible to fly, driving less and adopting largely meat-free diets 鈥� actions that are good for our health and well-being in ways beyond just climate security, too.

Longer-term, too, people 鈥� especially those living in richer, overconsuming parts of the world 鈥� may want to think about their own reproductive choices. There can be no doubt that fewer people on the planet would reduce our pressure on its support systems. But for those who see population reduction as the answer, another bald fact is that no decision taken now to have or not to have children will produce meaningful emissions reductions on the timescales needed.

The answers lie in the hands of those alive now. Technologically, those solutions are largely there. Implementing them is mainly a case of changing our mindset: seeing every action through the prism of a larger goal of securing our climate future 鈥� coupled with meaningful support for those whose livelihoods are affected by the transition.

Adopt the climate mindset and seize this moment, and we can be remembered as the fixer generation that turned things around for the children of today. We owe it to them, and ourselves.