Can Science and Technology Avert an Impending Climate Change Disaster ?: Donovan Reynolds -Independent Writer

 What we do in a short timespan will determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years. Climate scientists believe that any increase in average global temperatures beyond 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will lead to dangerous climate change, causing large-scale desertification, crop failure, inundation of coastal cities, mass migration to higher and cooler ground and widespread extinctions. This surely is an apocalyptic utopian vision of the future that has to be avoided.

Imagine a rise in global temperatures that causes weather systems to be unpredictable and inconsistent, to the extent of- melting ice at the North Pole causing rising sea levels, which could put low-lying island nations such as the Maldives, under the sea. We live a cushy life of capitalist consumption today within the shadow of a future disaster of our own making.

An on-line review of the current climate science has suggested the urgent necessity for a deep transformation by all the parties involved if we are to achieve the climate goals, and that such transformation must start early and result in deep emission reductions even before 2030.   

The Paris Agreement united almost all the world's nations - for the first time - in a single agreement on cutting the greenhouse gas emissions which are causing global warming. Now more than any other time in our history it is necessary to "pursue efforts" to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C, and to keep them "well below" 2.0 above pre-industrial times. The Paris Agreement’s overarching goal is to limiting global temperature rise by 2C—ideally 1.5C—by the end of the century. What then is preventing us from implementing this historical and necessary ecological agreement?  Or the question should rather be, why would the capitalist state move to curtail the fossil fuel industry, a service that has brought so much wealth to the capitalist class?

At the Paris climate change summit (COP21) in December 2015, an agreement was made for 190 countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions from human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally - known as net zero - between 2050 and 2100. Each country present were asked to set its own emission-reduction targets, reviewed every five years to raise ambitions. In addition rich countries were asked to help poorer nations by providing funding, known as climate finance, to adapt to climate change.

The Paris Climate Change accord was doomed to fail as ecologists argued that the international accord, which depended on collective action, did not include the kinds of incentives and penalties that would ensure that countries do their part. Among its most vociferous antagonist were members of the climate justice movement who decried the Agreement as the “Great Polluter’s Escape,” a “deliberate plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer,” and for making “more empty promises and false solutions” (One World 2015).

Furthermore, for its implementation to be successful. Much more linkages will be needed with non- state actors, relevant national planning, regulatory and legislative processes as well as to Sustainable Development Goals.

Moreover, international trade rules can often undermine governments’ climate action efforts, particularly around tariffs for high-carbon exports. Additionally, countries such as small Island developing states (SIDS) remained in urgent need of economic support to implement climate action.

COP26 held in Glasgow last year, provided an opportunity for developed nations to deliver their promise to developing countries. They agreed to jointly mobilize $100 billion annually to developing countries. That commitment still has not yet been met, resulting in a significant lack of faith amongst the contracting parties. It is glaringly obvious, that developing countries need the economic support for their climate actions that they have been promised if the 2050 targets are to be met.  

If we are to save the planet we must urgently put in place, practice and implement sound ecological civilized behaviour change that may require us to reduce our capitalist consumption that is dangerous to the health of this planet.

Numerous constituents of green thinking maintain that capitalism is incapable of a sustainable relationship with non-human nature because, as an economic capitalist world system that has a growth imperative accompanied by a huge demand for planetary properties while the earth resources is finite. Historically, oppressed groups such as indigenous peoples, people of colour, the poor, and migrants are more likely to be affected by climate change.

Moreover, capitalist expansion is always seen by sceptical eco-socialists as being "hand in glove" with "corrupt and subservient client states". They believe that there is a underling capitalist cabal that, consisting of intergovernmental organisations, Western European powers, the USA and China”, who all have large carbon polluting footprints. The political approach to tackling climate change by developed countries has therefore been pedestrian, incremental and in some cases undermining.

President Donald Trump's approach to climate change has been somewhat confusing. We can’t forget that he announced the infamous withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change agreement which was hastily restored by his predecessor President Biden. During his short term in office, in his ill-famed tweets he has called climate change "mythical", "non-existent", or "an expensive hoax" but also subsequently described it as a "serious subject" that is "very important to me". Albeit, over the past two decades combine research has shown that Republicans have grown increasingly doubtful about climate change. The track record for climate-friendly Republicans is therefore inconsistent.

Recent actions by the Conservative UK government is a dead give-away on their attitude towards climate change. The Sunday Times recent reported that newly crowned King Charles, the world's most famous environmental campaigner, was asked by the British Prime Minister to not attend next month’s Cop27 international climate change summit in Egypt despite his passionate commitment to environmental issues.

 Similarly,the Liberal political left in the US attempts to address climate change have floundered in the past. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey - both US Democratic Senators - introduced non-binding resolution in the US Congress in February 2019 calling for the federal government to create a Green New Deal. The main goal of the plan was to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down to net zero and meet 100% of power demand in the country through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources by 2030.

On March 26, in what Democrats called a "stunt," Republicans called for an early vote on the resolution without allowing discussion or expert testimony. In protest, 42 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted "present" resulting in a 57–0 defeat on the Senate floor.

Christian Parenti, a professor of sustainable development, now believes that urgent action climate change is necessary; it can only be achieved   through radical social transformation, by a socialist or anarchist   revolution, or a nostalgia-based return to a mythical small-town form of capitalism. What we need is a world economy that is sustainable, de-carbonised, with as little waste as possible and focused on meeting people’s needs. The capitalist’s expansionist billionaires and millionaires are not interested in this approach.

The idea that capitalism can go green is wishful thinking that flies in the face of reality. The large capitalist manufacturing plants produces greenhouse gases, pollution of all kinds and humongous amounts of waste in the production process. They deliberately make products designed that wear out quickly and not be recycled. These products are also often wrapped in unnecessary packaging way too burdensome for the planet. Could science therefore be the answer to averting a climate change disaster?

Perhaps the most political pragmatic approach to climate change by developing countries is mitigation and adaptation. The former means that developing countries should gradually move toward clean energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal kinetic power. It means closing coal-fired power plants, weaning their economies off fossil fuel. The latter, on the other hand, means countries arranging to live with the effects of climatic changes, some of which are already happening and some of which are unavoidable. For example, opening wildlife migration passageways so species can move away from the equator as the climate warms up

Surely, for this mitigation and adaptation is to have an impact on climate change it will require progressive economic redistribution and more sustainable forms of development that the economic funders of political parties could clearly sabotage. However, much more needs to be done to avert a looming climate disaster. Perhaps our greatest hope lies with our scientist who have always bailed out the planet from global pandemic they have dragged us out of the dark ages into modernity without sufficient recognition.

The Centre for Climate Repair is part of Cambridge university's Carbon Neutral Futures Initiative, led by Dr Emily Shuckburgh. The Centre mission is to "solve the climate problems" known collectively as a geo-engineering approach. The Government funded department according to Prof Sir David King was created out of fears that current approaches to climate change will not on their own stop dangerous and irreversible damage to the planet.  

One of the most promising ideas for refreezing the poles is to "brighten" the clouds above them.  One novel idea up for exploration is to pump seawater to tall masts on unmanned ships through very fine nozzles known as ocean spraying. The tiny drops of salt sprayed into the atmosphere would spread out make the clouds reflect more heat and so cool the areas below them.

Another new-found approach up for scientific veracity is a variant of an idea called carbon capture and storage (CCS). It entails collecting carbon dioxide emissions from coal or gas fired power stations or steel plants and storing it underground thus prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere.

Other ideas up for exploration is recycling CO2 and ocean greening. Recycling CO2 is the setting up a plant on-site which converts the manufacturing plants polluted carbon emissions into fuel using the plant's waste heat, according to Prof Styring. While Ocean Greening fertilising the sea from a ship with iron salts which boost the growth of plankton. This, in-turn, produces massive algae boom on the surface of sea-which absorbs CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis.

According to world renown climate scientists at the Royal Society, hydrogen and ammonia have important potential roles in a net zero economy. As they have no carbon emissions at the point of use. These two fuels are versatile and capable of being produced and utilised in many ways. This includes the production from renewable sources and applications to de- carbonise challenging areas, such as heavy transport, and the aviation industry.

To conclude, the coordination of swift action between all involved - from governments and businesses to communities and individuals - will be critical to achieve the rapid and transformational change required to halt an impending climate disaster. We at Kingstonmouth.com believe that the available scientific research shows how policy levers can be used to secure ‘win-win’ outcomes and minimise emissions at national and global levels. Relying on political action to achieve net zero by 2050 is like trying to get an honest politician and a good ghost to meet up; both are not real or ever achievable.

Donovan Reynolds is CEO forKingstonmouth.com He is a trained Diplomat, Human Rights Activist, and a Communication Consultant. This article is edited by Ann Smith, a British Educator and Social Activist. Kingstommouth.com is a charitable organization that has been in existence for over nine years. We have an interest in Politics, Human Rights, and International Development Issues. Viewers wishing to comment on this article may do so at the space provided on this blog. Alternatively, they can contact us at kingstonmouth 63@ gmail.com or on our Twitter or Facebook Page.