20150327_R4
Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
URL: N/A
Date: 27/03/2015
Event: Petra Tschakert: "My argument here is that 2 degrees is inadequate, utterly inadequate"
Credit: BBC Radio 4
People:
- Lord Deben: John Gummer, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (UK)
- Tom Feilden: BBC science correspondent
- Petra Tschakert: Assistant Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University
- Justin Webb: Presenter, BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
Justin Webb: The official target of keeping global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius has come under fire from a lead author of the International Panel on Climate Change. She's Petra Tschakert, she's from Pennsylvania State University and our science reporter Tom Feilden asked her what she thought was wrong with that target.
Petra Tschakert: My argument here is that 2 degrees is inadequate, utterly inadequate, because even now, under a 0.8 degree temperature increase, we already see severe consequences across the globe, whether that is for coral reefs or for disadvantaged, marginalised populations across the globe - urban, rural areas, including high-income countries. So thinking that, extrapolating from the impacts we see now to what these impacts may look like, under a 2-degree world, makes me believe and argue that 2 degrees is not a safe level.
Tom Feilden: So what should we be aiming for - 1.5 degrees?
Petra Tschakert: That's the one that is under discussion now - could, most likely, keep sea level rise below 1 metre by the end of the century. Above that is certainly not liveable for communities in low-lying areas.
Tom Feilden: This is a political process, as well as a scientific one, isn't it, and we have to set a realistic limit - 2% [sic] is going to be hard enough, isn't it. If we come down now to 1.5 or even lower, that's going to make finding a political compromise very difficult.
Petra Tschakert: I think you're absolutely right - it does boil down to political will. It boils down to real and very, very high numbers. The price will be even higher, the longer we wait. So delaying action will only make it more expensive.
Justin Webb: Mm - Petra Tschakert from Pennsylvania State University. Let's turn to Lord Deben, John Gummer, former Environment Secretary, of course - he's on the line. Good morning to you.
Lord Deben: Good morning.
Justin Webb: What do you make of that?
Lord Deben: Well, the fact is that it's very, very helpful to have people who are making this point, because normally I'm told "Oh, we can't possibly manage 2 degrees - what about 3 or 4 degrees?" - that's one of the things in one of the Shell scenario planning, suggesting that. The truth is that 2 degrees is the figure which the international community has signed up to, and it will mean, of course, that there'll be different effects in different parts of the world. I mean, some people will be more affected than others, and that's, I'm afraid, one of the problems. And the second problem is that we don't know exactly how it will affect us. What we do know is that if you go over 2 degrees, we have no idea of the calamity that might take place. Up to 2 degrees -
Justin Webb: And what we know - and what you, as a politician, will know this better than most - is that you need to try to achieve things that are achievable. And I suppose the settled view has been, up to now at least, that 2% [sic] is just what is achievable.
Lord Deben: Well, 2 degrees is - must be - achievable, I think that's the answer is - if you go above that, then we have no idea how disastrous it might be. Up to 2 degrees, we can - and your last informant was perfectly right - we can plot what is likely to happen. The real danger of going over 2 degrees is that things could happen of which we have no idea, because we've got nothing to compare it with.
So my own view is: you stick to 2 degrees, you really get an agreement in the international arrangements which are coming together in Paris in December, and you really fight for that. And if, as we move forward, it becomes clear to the world - because it has to be the world - it becomes clear to the world that we have to do more than that, then we will have to do more than that. But what we can't do is fail to fight for those 2 degrees.
And the only worry I have, with the last discussion, is that if you say to people "Well, this is not enough, and we've got to do more", and before we've even achieved a pathway to 2 degrees, seems to me that may well deflect people, and people will say "Oh well, we can't do it at all", and then there will be the sort of disaster, the calamity, which we will do on ourselves - this is human beings changing the climate which actually supports us.
Justin Webb: I suppose the question there, though, is whether you say to those countries that will be particularly badly affected, scientists believe, even at 2 degrees, you say to them, explicitly "Look, if you help us get to where we are, then we will address your needs, specifically", and potentially bring the whole thing down and shoot for 1.5, later.
Lord Deben: Well, I think we have to go quicker and further than that. We have to show those countries that at this moment, we will get the resources necessary to make them more resilient. Some of them can be more resilient, others can't, but those that can ought to expect the rich countries who have profited from this pollution that is causing this problem - we've made our money out of it, that's what the Industrial Revolution was about, that's why we are rich. And we ought to now commit ourselves to helping those nations, to actually face up to the damage that we have done.
Justin Webb: Lord Deben, John Gummer, thanks.