Climate Change – The Case For Emergency Action – Ian Dunlop

Issue 3 | 30 June 2009

Ian Dunlop began his professional career as an engineer and progressed to be a senior executive in the oil, gas and coal industry, acting as Chair of the Australian Coal Association from 1987-88. With the climate change debate, he has become an advocate for an Australian integrated policy response to the global challenges of climate change and peak oil. Ian Dunlop was Chair of the AGO Experts Group on Emissions Trading in 1999-2000 and is currently a Centre for Policy Development Fellow and Deputy Convenor of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas Sydney. Ian Dunlop addressed The Sydney Institute on Tuesday 30 June 2009.

CLIMATE CHANGE – THE CASE FOR EMERGENCY ACTION

IAN T. DUNLOP

The Earth’s climate is always changing.  The issue today is the extent to which current changes are anthropogenic (human-induced), arising from the emission of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning and agriculture, as opposed to being natural variations.

The thin greenhouse gas blanket encompassing the Earth is essential for our survival; without it the average temperature would be around -19^oC, some 34^OC colder than it is today, rendering human life impossible. CO₂ is an essential part of that blanket and its atmospheric concentration has a critical influence on global climate, acting to retain solar radiation and warm the planet.

Thus atmospheric CO₂ is a good thing; however, like most good things in life, you can have too much of it. If the current atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases resulting from human activity continue to escalate, the corresponding warming is likely to render much of the planet uninhabitable. The challenge is to maintain a sensible balance which can sustain human life.

The empirical evidence has been indicating for some time now that our climatic system is rapidly moving out of balance as a result of human activity, and that emergency corrective action is needed This paper sets out the case for such emergency action, based on the management of uncertainty and risk. Such action is also required to meet the broader global sustainability challenge confronting humanity.

Homo Sapiens has evolved through the last 200,000 years in widely varying climatic conditions. However, humanity in its present form has developed during the short Holocene period over the last 11,000 years in a relatively benign and stable climate, with average temperature sitting within a band of +/- 0.5^oC around 15^oC – what might be called the Safe Climate Zone.

There have been temperature ups and downs during this period, within the safe zone, encompassing for example the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. What is noticeable in both cases is that relatively minor variations in global temperature had a major effect on climate.

We are now heading into a period where, unless rapid action is taken, scientists believe global temperature may move into a range of 1.5 to 4.5^oC above the Holocene mean by 2100, something never before experienced throughout advanced human evolution, with potentially devastating consequences for many parts of the world.

The great majority of authoritative science believes that this is largely due to rapidly increasing human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the consequent increase in atmospheric carbon concentration since 1945 in particular, brought about by the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and modern agricultural practices.

The world is undoubtedly warming, as demonstrated by the annual trend from 1901 to 2005. Eight of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. All ten hottest years have occurred since 1990. The average temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution is around 0.8^oC, with a further 0.6^oC inevitable as a result of emissions to date; the latter has not yet manifested itself due to the inertia of the global climate system.

Northern polar temperatures are increasing at more than twice the global mean trend.

Around this warming trend, there are always local variations.  For example it is currently claimed by some sceptics that the world has cooled since 1998, heralding an extended cooling period, possibly a new Ice Age, linked to the solar cycles. However, similar deviations occurred in 1987-96 and 1977-89, to name but two, despite which the long-term warming trend continued its inexorable upward path.

There is a very high probability that the warming trend will continue, and a far lower probability that solar cycle variations will cancel it out, as the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations outweighs the effect of solar cycle variations.  Indeed it may well be that a new solar cycle adds to, rather than detracts from, the warming effect over the next few years. This highlights the need to view climate change from the uncertainty and risk management perspective.

The climate change debate over the last two decades has been bedevilled by the dominance of absolutist views – you are either pro or anti the thesis of human-induced, as opposed to natural, climate change, with no room for debate.

In reality, climate change is probably due to both natural and human causes – we will not know the exact answer to the relative contributions for decades to come, which is why the science must continually probe for better understanding. This is an incredibly complex issue, but while there remains much uncertainty, there is also a high degree of certainty on many key issues. The bulk of the authoritative science now indicates strongly that human activity is a major factor, so this becomes a question of managing  uncertainty and risk whilst we continually refine our scientific understanding. But that is no reason for inaction.

It is right to be sceptical of any absolutist position. However, scepticism works both ways, and denial is not scepticism. Other explanations of the global warming phenomenon, apart from the anthropogenic CO₂ thesis, may be feasible, but on the balance of probabilities they seem highly unlikely given the evidence before us. Indeed if the warming now occurring is a result of natural factors, then we have an even bigger problem as we have even less means of containing it.

The evidence demonstrates that climate change is happening far faster than previously thought and that our risk exposure to abrupt and major irreversible changes is escalating rapidly. Hence the 2006 Stern diagram needs re-calibration – what was supposed to happen at 2^oC warming is in many cases happening at 1^oC warming or less.  The urgency of our response needs to be similarly re-thought.

In this context, it is as well to remember what the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992), to which Australia is a signatory, is trying to achieve:

Article 2. Objective

Stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Article 3.3 Principles

The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures…

Delay and procrastination since 1992 in agreeing and implementing any measures to seriously address the climate challenge mean that we have wasted the opportunity to take a graduated response. If risks are to be sensibly contained, we now have very little time to take action, far less than is being acknowledged politically.

Slide 6. Risks Are Escalating Fast – The Evidence

The evidence of accelerating risks from climate change is clear:

• Accelerating human carbon emissions
• Rapid summer melt of Arctic sea ice
• Initial indications of Arctic permafrost & possibly seabed methane hydrate (clathrate) emissions
• Decline in natural carbon sinks
• Large increase in projected sea level rise
• Non-linear response to climate forcings with potentially escalating temperature increase
• Tipping point for ice sheet loss & glaciers at lower temperatures than expected
• Increased ocean acidification

– examples of which are shown in the following slides.

Despite much rhetoric from political leaders, and extended negotiations over two decades, virtually nothing has been done so far to contain anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions are now accelerating faster than the worst case envisaged by the IPCC, (International Panel on Climate Change) estimates, albeit there may be some short term respite due to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). This makes it even harder to stabilise emissions in the future within the 450 – 550 ppm atmospheric CO₂e concentration band which is the supposed objective of current political debate. The latest science is indicating that this target band, which was adopted several years ago, is itself far too high.

The “canary-in-the-coal-mine” on global warming evidence is undoubtedly the Arctic sea ice summer melt, which is moving far faster that anticipated. It has already reached levels which were not supposed to occur until 2100, to the point where the Arctic may be completely free of sea ice in summer within a few years. The most recent US National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) report shows 2009 Arctic sea ice melt approaching the record melt trend of 2007.

The disappearance of Arctic sea ice has major implications for global climate. The solar radiation reflected from the ice declines, that radiation then warms the ocean water, thus leading to more warming, greater ice melt and etc. These non-linear, positive feedback effects have global ramifications in accelerating warming.

The Arctic is warming at possibly 2 – 3.5 times the global average, a major cause being warmer ocean currents. One result is that the melting of the permafrost encircling the Arctic, which has been occurring for some time, is also accelerating.

In the medium to long term this will lead to the emission of extremely large quantities of CO₂ and methane. Potential carbon emissions from permafrost melting are around 2.2 times atmospheric carbon and 5 times the total fossil fuel carbon emissions since 1850.  If the permafrost starts to melt extensively, we have a very big, and possibly irreversible, problem, with the potential for runaway global warming.

Some of the most recent science is suggesting that global emissions, as of 2005, have already committed the world to an eventual warming of around 2.4^oC (probability range 1.4 – 4.3^oC).  Presently this is masked by the effect of aerosols from airborne pollution (from fossil-fuel burning), which offset warming by reflecting the sun’s rays, and by the thermal inertia of the global ocean system, giving the current observed warming of around 0.8^oC. But the full warming effect will unfold over time. If temperature turns out to be toward the lower end of that probability distribution, we may have already triggered tipping points for:

– Arctic summer ice

– Himalayan / Tibetan glaciers

– Greenland Ice Sheet – up to 7 metre sea level rise

and, if temperature at the higher end of the probability distribution materialises:

– Amazon Rain Forest turning into savannah

– Extended El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions

– North Atlantic thermohaline circulation slowdown

– West Antarctic Ice Sheet disintegration – further possible 6 metre sea level rise

The loss of the Himalayan ice sheets, which is already well underway will, if it continues, result in severe water shortages for some 2 billion people in South East Asia, with the potential for major social disruption.

In trying to spread awareness of the risks of climate change, one of the most difficult aspects is the delay factor before the results of our actions today manifest themselves in concrete climatic events – in short, the “frog in boiling water” analogy. If a frog is placed in water on a stove and the water gradually heated, the frog will stay there as the water boils, oblivious to its own demise!

So it is with climate change – actions we take today have enormous impact for decades to come, even if emissions are rapidly reduced. The implication is clear – if we are serious about containing climate change risk, and minimising the risks for future generation as well as our own, action is needed now whilst solutions can still be effective – not in five or ten years time. The fact that we are already seeing bad things happen at the existing levels of warming gives added weight to this urgency.

One of the fallacies of current perceptions of climate change is that its impact will be some time off into the future. Nothing could be further from the truth – it is happening here and now. For example:

–          The EU heatwave in 2003 killed 35,000 ,

–          Hurricane Katrina in 2005 killed 1500 and caused major economic disruption.

–          Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh in 2007 killed 3,700,

–          Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008 killed 150,000,

–          Ongoing US, Greek & Australian bushfires and floods, etc.

None of these can be put down exclusively to climate change, but all are in line with its predicted evolution, leading to the reasonable conclusion that climate change played a significant role.

Recent work by the Global Humanitarian Forum has for the first time attempted to quantify the impact worldwide. Some 325 million people annually are thought to be seriously affected by climate change, already 315,000 die each year from climate change with an economic cost around US$125 billion, equivalent to total global development aid. Unless corrective action is taken, this impact will accelerate, with the potential for major environmental migration, failed states, escalating terrorism and etc.

The current global greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations are:

– 387 ppm CO₂

– 455 ppm CO₂e – (CO₂ equivalent including other gases)

– Increasing at around 2ppm per annum

– Temporarily offset by aerosols, reducing this effectively to 375 ppm CO₂e

The current political negotiating range for emission reductions is based on stabilising

atmospheric carbon at between 450 – 550ppm CO₂e. This range, which is now several years out-of-date, is assumed to contain climate change below the dangerous level, this being the objective of the UNFCCC 1992 Agreement.

450 ppm is presented politically as equating to 2^oC global mean temperature warming above pre-industrial levels. However the analysis on which it is based actually says that 450 ppm gives a:

26 -78% chance of exceeding 2^oC, say 50% on average

4 – 50% chance of exceeding 3^OC, say 25% on average

0 – 34% chance of exceeding 4^OC, say 17% on average

Even if 2^oC were the right target to prevent dangerous climate change, which on current evidence it patently is not, would you fly in an aircraft with only a 50 per cent chance of reaching its destination?  I doubt it, so why do so with climate change?

The implications of temperature increases of 1^oC to 3^oC, based on the latest scientific assessments are set out below:

1^oC

– Destruction of Arctic ecosystem, possibly triggering tipping point

– More frequent, intense heatwaves & extreme fire events

– Ongoing drought – for example Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, western USA

– Swift retreat of mountain glaciers – Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Europe etc.

– Drying of Eastern Amazon, regular droughts, fires & large carbon emissions

– Fresh water eliminated from 1/3 of global land surface by 2100

– Low-lying states & coral reefs facing extinction due to bleaching

2^oC

– Large feedback loops triggered in oceans, ice-sheets, permafrost, forests & soils

– Possible disintegration of Greenland & West Antarctic ice-sheets, leading to 5-13 metre sea level rise

– Extinction of 15-40% of plant & animal species

– Dangerous ocean acidification

– Increasing methane release

– Widespread drought & desertification – Africa, Australia, Mediterranean Europe, western USA

3^oC

– Northern hemisphere free of glaciers & ice-sheets – several more metres of sea level rise

– Semi-permanent El Nino conditions

– Extensive melting of permafrost with large-scale carbon dioxide and methane release

– Possible tipping point for ocean-bed frozen methane deposits, leading to severe temperature escalation

– Amazon turns to savannah grassland

– Increased extreme weather events

Major changes are already occurring with the current level of warming of around 0.8^oC relative to pre-industrial times. The additional 0.6^oC warming to which we are already committed as a result of existing emissions will take us well into the dangerous bands outlined above.

Are we prepared to tacitly stand by and risk this level of destruction taking place? If we have any consideration for future generations, as well as the current global community, the answer is surely no!

Current global negotiations on climate change are based on science which is 6-7 years out-of-date. As a result, the current scientific and political debates are like two ships passing in the night with minimal communications. If this disconnect continues, it guarantees that the December 2009 UNFCCC Copenhagen Climate Change meeting will be a failure. There is an urgent need to inject the realities of the latest science into these discussions before that meeting takes place.

This science indicates that a 2^oC temperature rise compared to pre-industrial levels is far too high if we are to avoid dangerous climate change:

– Non-linear effects are already occurring at 0.8^oC rise

– Tipping points may be already committed

– We are probably well into the danger zone already

The new objective, for a safe climate, built around restoring Arctic summer sea ice, will have to be a stabilisation target of around 300ppm CO₂.  This requires developed world emission reductions of:

– 45-50 per cent by 2020

– 95-100 per cent by 2050

compared with the 5-25 per cent by 2020 and 50-80 per cent by 2050 currently under discussion.

This is a far greater task than is being acknowledged politically or corporately. Many will argue that it is impossible given the extent of change required, but that is only so when viewed with a “business-as-usual” mindset. We have the solutions, given the will to honestly face the size of the challenge and not keep our heads stuck in the sand.

But climate change cannot be viewed in isolation, as we are currently doing. It is part, admittedly a very big part, of the much wider challenge of Global Sustainability, as the planet tries, increasingly unsuccessfully, to cope with the demands of a rapidly increasing population and its consumption aspirations. Before 1800, global population was below 1 billion, in 1945 around 2 billion – still a relatively empty world. Today it is 6.7 billion – a full world – with 9 billion forecast for 2050. We already require 1.3 planets to meet our current needs, 6 planets if humanity all lived at Australian standards, 9 planets at US standards. We are rapidly eating into our global natural capital – clearly this cannot continue.

The immediate pressure points are Peak Oil and Energy Security, Climate Change, Water and Food shortages and financial instability. These are all interrelated, although we tend to treat them in their separate silos; they are all symptomatic of a full, and unsustainable, world.

It is essential we seek integrated solutions to these interrelated problems if we are to have any chance of resolving them. For example, global oil supply has either peaked already or we are close to it. The result may be a decline of 25-50% in oil availability by 2030 – a fundamental change for Western economies which are addicted to cheap oil, and particularly for Australia. If the result of such a shortfall is a fall-back on increased coal consumption, without the ability to capture and safely store the resulting carbon emissions, which is in itself unlikely, it will be disastrous from a climate change perspective.

Given the seriousness of the circumstances now unfolding, why are these warnings being ignored by global and national leaders? Key factors are:

Vested interests & power structures maintain the status quo

• The existing Western economic system has been built up over decades around the culture of conventional growth and incremental improvement. Power and influence have evolved accordingly. The changes we now require are transformative, not incremental, in which many established players will lose and new players gain. Inevitably there is a reluctance to break with the status quo, as the old players continue to exercise power and adopt defensive rather than leadership roles, even though this is not in their own long-term interests.

Short termism & incentives prohibit long-term thinking

• Over the last two decades, both political and corporate thinking has become predominately short-term, to the detriment of long-term considerations. This is accentuated by the dominance of short-term incentives at all levels. Climate and sustainability are long-term issues, thus every opportunity is seized upon to downplay their importance (e.g. by lending unrealistic weight to denial despite the obvious evidence to the contrary)

Ideology & Fundamentalism blunts the senses

• Neo-liberalism and free market ideology has dominated Western economic systems.  Markets are important, but to be effective they must operate within realistic rules.  Unfortunately the rules of key markets have been progressively dismantled over the last decade, one result of which has been the GFC. More fundamentally there is a reluctance, because of vested interests, to acknowledge the true costs of externalities, such as carbon pollution, and incorporate them into the market model. Far easier to rely on denial.

Managerialism triumphs over leadership

• corporate and political culture, whilst supposedly focused on leadership, in reality is predominantly built around managerialism;  that is the incremental improvement of the status quo, oblivious to the fact that the status quo is unsustainable. Real leadership means being prepared to honestly acknowledge the challenge of climate and sustainability, set out the solutions however unpalatable, then build support for, and implement the change.

Technology will save the day

• The easy response has been to assume that technology will save the day, as it has periodically in the past. Technology is essential to finding the right solutions, but given the degree of change now required, it must be accompanied by a change in value systems, particularly in the Western world.

Given these dominant attitudes, it is not surprising than any alternative view to the mainstream science is seized upon with alacrity as evidence that either the global warming thesis is nonsense, or that it is far less serious than presented.  For example, that the world is about to enter a cooling rather than a warming phase, based on declining solar activity and/or cosmic ray variations, that the changes observed in recent time are no different from those frequently observed throughout geological time and thus warrant no special attention etc. Certainly these claims deserve serious consideration, given the implications of climate change for humanity. They need to be peer-reviewed for objectivity and scientific rigour as per the mainstream science, but most importantly the risk implications of accepting these arguments must be thought through.

None of these alternative theses have adequately explained the enormous changes we now see actually happening globally and all have even greater uncertainties associated with them than the greenhouse gas thesis. Critically, they need to allow for the fact that the impact of humanity is very recent; it is only since the end of WW2 that the major impact of population growth and its associated human carbon emissions has manifested itself, to be overlain on whatever natural climatic variations are taking place. For example the geological perspectives advanced recently by Professor Ian Plimer, indicating that current climatic variations are minor compared with the geological record, ignores the fact that for the vast majority of this time, humanity did not exist as the climatic conditions were not conducive to life.

The real issue is the risk we now run of moving outside humanity’s safe climate zone as a result of our own activity, and the extent to which we can apply corrective action.

At present, our political and corporate leaders are working on the assumption that climate change can be solved in the time-honoured tradition of political compromise between competing ambit claims, or incremental change to business-as-usual.

If you have any belief in the scientific and empirical evidence now before us, it is patently obvious that these avenues offer no solutions. That is underlined by the inability of current political debate to face the issues honestly even after two decades of argument.

A global sustainability emergency

The convergence of these issues represents nothing less than a global emergency, which needs an emergency response. This might have been regarded as extremist nonsense some time ago, but an increasing number of world leaders are beginning to talk in similar terms, for example:

This is an emergency and for emergency situations we need emergency action – Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, 7 November 2007

The world’s energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable – environmentally, economically, socially. But that can – and must – be altered; there’s still time to change the road we’re on. It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successful we tackle the two central challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to a low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply. What is needed is nothing short of an energy revolution. – International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2008, 12 November 2008

Recent observations confirm… the worst case IPCC scenarios are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the bounds of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived… There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts. –

Key Messages from Copenhagen Climate Change Science Conference

10 -12 March 2009

Global emergency action – what does it mean?

The emergency we now face will require a response akin to emergencies of the past, for example:

– The Marshall Plan for the re-construction of Europe post WW2

– The Apollo Project to put a man on the moon

– Manhattan Project which created the atomic bomb

– The mobilisation of the UK or German economies on a war-footing pre-WW2

– The US response to Pearl Harbour – the economy was placed on a war-footing within 18 months

Whilst the war-footing analogy is not ideal, it does indicate the scale of change that can be achieved if built around a clear objective – in this case moving rapidly to a low-carbon economy. That is the type of thinking needed, not the current incrementalism based on the “art-of-the-politically-possible”.

The GFC is no excuse for inaction, on the contrary it is our great opportunity to set the economy on a sustainable footing. At present, implicit denial of the urgency for change from some sectors of the corporate world continues, with the emphasis on slowing up implementation of emissions trading, demands for compensation etc. The problems and costs of change are exaggerated and the enormous business and job creation opportunities ahead, in making the transformation, are ignored. This time the excuse is the GFC, last time it was to avoid doing anything which might disrupt the China boom.

History shows that rapid change can occur with the right incentive and we now have that incentive; we must not waste the opportunity. Quite apart from the need to manage the climate challenge, if we do not act rapidly the Australian economy a decade hence will be severely compromised as the rest of the world moves past us into the low-carbon era.

Emergency action – technical components

The technical components of the transformation are well-defined:

–          Rapid phase out of high-emission assets

o   unless carbon can be safely sequestered, which looks unlikely in the short term

–          Major, nation-building, investments in:

o   Energy conservation & efficiency

o   Renewable energy

o   Latest generation nuclear

o   Efficient public transport

o   High-speed broadband

o   Low-emission technologies

o   Terrestrial Carbon

o   halt de-forestation, accelerate re-forestation, farming practices

–          Technology transfer & financial support from developed to developing world –

innovative technology may enable developing world to “leapfrog” developed world

Australia is well placed to prosper in the new low carbon world as we have arguably the world’s greatest endowment of renewable energy and the intellectual capacity to develop it, provided we have the appropriate vision and foresight. Sadly that vision remains dormant as myopic fossil-fuel interests still dominate the national debate.

Our great opportunity

The challenge is enormous, but rather than a disaster, this is the greatest opportunity we have ever had to place the world on a genuinely sustainable footing, for what we are currently doing is not sustainable. We know the solutions, but they hit at the very fundamentals on which our society is based – their implementation will need far bolder and broader thinking than we are seeing at present, along the lines of the initiatives shown below:

• Mobilisation to establish sustainable, resilient societies
  • conventional economic growth is untenable
• Re-defining success
  • based on long-term sustainability, not maximising consumption
• Re-designing markets
  • based on enhancing the “Commons”, not short-term profit maximisation
• New forms of community involvement & democratic structure
  • essential, given the extent of change required
  • traditional elites unlikely to provide leadership
• Developed / developing world cooperation
  • new paradigm built around climate / energy solutions
• Business & governance models re-structured
  • incentives re-focused
• Technology is critical
  • combined with changing  values
• Peak Oil & the Financial Crisis
  • essential circuit-breakers to trigger a sustainability transformation
  • not an excuse for inaction

Debate on these issues is gaining pace globally, but has barely surfaced in Australia as we remain embroiled in argument over outdated political and business models.

Critical policy elements

In the light of the climate and sustainability emergency we now face, climate change policy needs to be re-formulated along the following lines:

• Set key parameters (eg targets) based on science
  • not on a political view of the “art-of-the-possible”
• Acknowledge this is an emergency needing an emergency response
  • not incremental change to “business-as-usual”
• Base response primarily on moral & ethical grounds, not economics
  • economics is  valuable to set the most efficient path, but not as determinant of targets
• Balanced portfolio of solutions, focusing on new opportunities
  • rather than shoring up and compensating established vested interests
• Genuine global leadership, with concrete proposals for developing world
  • convergence toward global per capita carbon & oil allocations
• Focus on integrated solutions
  • climate change, peak oil, water & food shortages, financial crisis are all inter-related.
• Honestly explain & educate community on implications of the emergency
  • to build commitment for action
• Take rapid, decisive action

Conclusion

The climate and sustainability challenges we now face are unprecedented; they need a fundamentally different approach from incremental change to “business-as-usual”. Most importantly they need our personal involvement to ensure in every way possible this message is passed on so that political and corporate leaders understand they have the legitimacy to make the changes needed.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong recently chided climate change activists for being unrealistic and unreasonable in their demands.  But in the words of George Bernard Shaw: “All progress depends on not being reasonable”

As Gus Speth, Dean of Yale University Environmental Sciences faculty puts it, in the circumstances we now face: “It is time for a large amount of civic unreasonableness” Only in this way will real leadership emerge.