Why emergency?
Emergencies have these essential elements; immediate and significant risk and; requiring action to avoid that risk.
Emergencies are not just about fires, floods, health or personal issues that can affect cities, state regions, or in the case of global warming the entire world. COVID-19 is an example of a global emergency that has required extreme measures by most government in order to reduce the loss of life occurring in each country.
We currently face a global climate and ecological emergency that is increasing in severity with each passing day as the impacts of global warming increase in both frequency and severity. Ultimately we will see global warming creating complex emergencies that result in food shortages, failure of nation states, and resulting extreme responses by governments.
These will effect the world poorest and most fragile countries first but will ultimately impact all countries if global warming is not reversed.
World Food and Agriculture organisation describes "complex emergencies" here.
Emergencies have these essential elements; immediate and significant risk and; requiring action to avoid that risk.
Emergencies are not just about fires, floods, health or personal issues that can affect cities, state regions, or in the case of global warming the entire world. COVID-19 is an example of a global emergency that has required extreme measures by most government in order to reduce the loss of life occurring in each country.
We currently face a global climate and ecological emergency that is increasing in severity with each passing day as the impacts of global warming increase in both frequency and severity. Ultimately we will see global warming creating complex emergencies that result in food shortages, failure of nation states, and resulting extreme responses by governments.
These will effect the world poorest and most fragile countries first but will ultimately impact all countries if global warming is not reversed.
World Food and Agriculture organisation describes "complex emergencies" here.
How did we get here?
The climate emergency has resulted from humans putting additional greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the earths system that slows the escape from the heat we get from the sun. Without these the earth would be an average of -18 degrees cooler and life as we know it would not exist.
By putting more and more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, more and more heat it traped and the earths temperature rises. This is explained on the diagram below.
Greenhouse gases have heated our planet and at current levels are already a true disaster on a global scale. Unless removed, these gases will result in a level of global warming that will be catastrophic for humanity and most of the world's remaining ecosystems.
If you want some more information about the basics of global warming NASA has a series of web pages which unpack global warming, including looking at the evidence behind it.
The climate emergency has resulted from humans putting additional greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the earths system that slows the escape from the heat we get from the sun. Without these the earth would be an average of -18 degrees cooler and life as we know it would not exist.
By putting more and more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, more and more heat it traped and the earths temperature rises. This is explained on the diagram below.
Greenhouse gases have heated our planet and at current levels are already a true disaster on a global scale. Unless removed, these gases will result in a level of global warming that will be catastrophic for humanity and most of the world's remaining ecosystems.
If you want some more information about the basics of global warming NASA has a series of web pages which unpack global warming, including looking at the evidence behind it.
What should we do?
There are various options we could take to response to global warming. These include:
Do nothing - this has been the argument of global warming sceptics and deniers, and one of two main tactics used by the fossil fuel industries to delay action. The basics of this attack is to undermine the validity of science on global warming often attacking the motivation of the scientists and secondly claim action on global warming will be an economic disaster.
The attack on science has created a sense there is still a debate over the validity of the global warming science and the actions need to reverse it and as unintended (though it might have been deliberate) consequence a more broader questioning of science in general.
The economic attack has been used to delay action and pour trillions of dollar worth of tax payers subsidies into climate destructive industries such as oil, coal and gas and land clearing. The IMF estimates that in 2017, global fossil fuel subsidies grew to $5.2 trillion, representing 6.5 per cent of combined global GDP.
The get a good understanding listen to ABC Radio National's Richard Aide's series Hot Mess which explores the role of the carbon industries on undermining action on global warming.
Delay action - By setting dates goals and targets into the distant future so that you can avoid tacking serious action now.
This is second key tactic used by the fossil fuels and one at which they have been very successful. Consequently most climate goals talk about hitting global net zero at or sometime after 2050, while a slightly more ambitious version is net zero by 2040.
These goals and targets, if followed, commit the world to catastrophic temperature rises. In Australia both major parties and most eNGOs follow these targets (as at June 2020) and are nothing short of a crime against humanity, this planet and our children.
Make hollow commitments - The Paris agreement was one where globally nations "on paper" committed to avoiding a 2 agree temperature rise, while the actions and commitment that have flown from this agreement will see a 3+ degree temperature raise and a global catastrophe.
Implement some solutions while continuing to undertake destructive practices - This where a government rolls out a one or more significant policies or programs while continuing other really bad ones that make it worse.
The Victorian Andrews' Labor government is a great example, where they implemented a range of positive policies that included subsiding solar power for those that could afford it and buying Greenpower for Melbourne's trams, while at the same time reopened Victoria to land based gas exploration, fast tracked brown coal to liquid fuel infrastructure, and committed to the ongoing destruction of our native forest till 2030, and maintained the suicidal goal of net zero by 2050.
Focus on the easiest area while ignoring the whole picture - this is largely the response of most NGOs in Australia and around the world until very recently. Here people focus on one area such as renewable energy or transport or even one fuel type i.e campaigning against coal but not gas or oil, while at the same ignoring other factors such as high emissions agriculture, land clearing, forest destruction, diet, consumption and population growth.
By not focusing on the whole problem it creates the wrong impression in the public mind about what the problem is and what is action needs to be taken to combat global warming. It also and stops people taking easy actions such as changing their diet which can be done the next time they visit a shop.
What should be be aiming for?
Clearly all of the above responses are inappropriate for one reason or another and their implementation has resulted in a failure to stop let alone reverse global warming.
So what should we do? CACE argues we should frame our response in a moral and ethical framework and this framework should be based around the maximum protection of human and nonhuman life.
Maximum protection would mean reversing global warming and creating a global cooling as soon as possible .
To create a global cooling we need to:
1. reduce our emissions to as close to zero as possible in all sectors of our economy, including energy, agriculture, landuse, and industrial process; and
2. draw down past emissions.
To create a global cooling we will need to disrupt our economies - not just tweak them.
How bad is it? Well take a look at what happens at 1.5 degrees.
If we don't succeed in creating a global cooling impacts will be disastrous. According to Philip Sutton from RSTI*, even if we stabilise temperatures at the Paris Agreement’s best case cap of +1.5°C, this will:
CACE discusses what goals and targets would be appropriate for a council on our Goals and Targets for Council page.
There are various options we could take to response to global warming. These include:
Do nothing - this has been the argument of global warming sceptics and deniers, and one of two main tactics used by the fossil fuel industries to delay action. The basics of this attack is to undermine the validity of science on global warming often attacking the motivation of the scientists and secondly claim action on global warming will be an economic disaster.
The attack on science has created a sense there is still a debate over the validity of the global warming science and the actions need to reverse it and as unintended (though it might have been deliberate) consequence a more broader questioning of science in general.
The economic attack has been used to delay action and pour trillions of dollar worth of tax payers subsidies into climate destructive industries such as oil, coal and gas and land clearing. The IMF estimates that in 2017, global fossil fuel subsidies grew to $5.2 trillion, representing 6.5 per cent of combined global GDP.
The get a good understanding listen to ABC Radio National's Richard Aide's series Hot Mess which explores the role of the carbon industries on undermining action on global warming.
Delay action - By setting dates goals and targets into the distant future so that you can avoid tacking serious action now.
This is second key tactic used by the fossil fuels and one at which they have been very successful. Consequently most climate goals talk about hitting global net zero at or sometime after 2050, while a slightly more ambitious version is net zero by 2040.
These goals and targets, if followed, commit the world to catastrophic temperature rises. In Australia both major parties and most eNGOs follow these targets (as at June 2020) and are nothing short of a crime against humanity, this planet and our children.
Make hollow commitments - The Paris agreement was one where globally nations "on paper" committed to avoiding a 2 agree temperature rise, while the actions and commitment that have flown from this agreement will see a 3+ degree temperature raise and a global catastrophe.
Implement some solutions while continuing to undertake destructive practices - This where a government rolls out a one or more significant policies or programs while continuing other really bad ones that make it worse.
The Victorian Andrews' Labor government is a great example, where they implemented a range of positive policies that included subsiding solar power for those that could afford it and buying Greenpower for Melbourne's trams, while at the same time reopened Victoria to land based gas exploration, fast tracked brown coal to liquid fuel infrastructure, and committed to the ongoing destruction of our native forest till 2030, and maintained the suicidal goal of net zero by 2050.
Focus on the easiest area while ignoring the whole picture - this is largely the response of most NGOs in Australia and around the world until very recently. Here people focus on one area such as renewable energy or transport or even one fuel type i.e campaigning against coal but not gas or oil, while at the same ignoring other factors such as high emissions agriculture, land clearing, forest destruction, diet, consumption and population growth.
By not focusing on the whole problem it creates the wrong impression in the public mind about what the problem is and what is action needs to be taken to combat global warming. It also and stops people taking easy actions such as changing their diet which can be done the next time they visit a shop.
What should be be aiming for?
Clearly all of the above responses are inappropriate for one reason or another and their implementation has resulted in a failure to stop let alone reverse global warming.
So what should we do? CACE argues we should frame our response in a moral and ethical framework and this framework should be based around the maximum protection of human and nonhuman life.
Maximum protection would mean reversing global warming and creating a global cooling as soon as possible .
To create a global cooling we need to:
1. reduce our emissions to as close to zero as possible in all sectors of our economy, including energy, agriculture, landuse, and industrial process; and
2. draw down past emissions.
To create a global cooling we will need to disrupt our economies - not just tweak them.
How bad is it? Well take a look at what happens at 1.5 degrees.
If we don't succeed in creating a global cooling impacts will be disastrous. According to Philip Sutton from RSTI*, even if we stabilise temperatures at the Paris Agreement’s best case cap of +1.5°C, this will:
- fail to prevent the Pacific and Indian Ocean atoll nations from being permanently flooded; fail to prevent permanent flooding of low-lying, heavily populated areas (Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, Egypt, etc. where over 100 million people live). We have already locked in 25 metres of sea level rise.
- fail to prevent the destruction of coral reefs around the world including the Great Barrier Reef;
- fail to prevent the mobilisation of the huge carbon stores in the Arctic, that will cause releases of CO2 and methane that could exceed the emissions from all fossil fuels so far;
- fail to provide food security; and
- fail to provide a foundation for military security and positive peace.
CACE discusses what goals and targets would be appropriate for a council on our Goals and Targets for Council page.
Do we have the big picture solutions?
When talking about the climate emergency problem with your community it is important to show them we actually have all the solutions we need to combat climate change - we have since the mid 2000s.
Can we get change fast enough?
The short answer is yes we can, if our politicians act soon. Your council can help this process by treating climate change as an emergency when state and federal governments are not.
Watch this great TED Talk by Tony Seba on Clean Disruption in the areas of Energy & Transportation. It explains the numerous extremely fast technological changes we have had in the past are simply driven by economics and market pressure. If you are short of time just watch the first few minutes to get a sense of what is possible.
When talking about the climate emergency problem with your community it is important to show them we actually have all the solutions we need to combat climate change - we have since the mid 2000s.
- Beyond Zero Emissions has developed a range of 10 year emergency speed transition plans and other plans to respond to and reverse global warming
- Zero Carbon Britain has developed transition plans for reaching zero emission solutions for the UK
- Drawdown looks at the top 100 global scale solutions we can use to return to a safe climate.
Can we get change fast enough?
The short answer is yes we can, if our politicians act soon. Your council can help this process by treating climate change as an emergency when state and federal governments are not.
Watch this great TED Talk by Tony Seba on Clean Disruption in the areas of Energy & Transportation. It explains the numerous extremely fast technological changes we have had in the past are simply driven by economics and market pressure. If you are short of time just watch the first few minutes to get a sense of what is possible.
Here are some other resources on the Climate Emergency
Breakthrough is an organisation focused on Climate Emergency education. They have a range of papers and presentations that outline key issues.
RealClimate is a commentary webpage on climate science by working climate scientists written for the interested public and journalists.
Interested in extreme impacts?
If you would like to watch something about the impacts then you can see this video titled "A farewell to ice" by Arctic Scientist Peter Wadhams.
Or this video about trying to predict the 9 worst weather events likely to be experienced in the next 30 years including many influenced by global warming.
Breakthrough is an organisation focused on Climate Emergency education. They have a range of papers and presentations that outline key issues.
RealClimate is a commentary webpage on climate science by working climate scientists written for the interested public and journalists.
Interested in extreme impacts?
If you would like to watch something about the impacts then you can see this video titled "A farewell to ice" by Arctic Scientist Peter Wadhams.
Or this video about trying to predict the 9 worst weather events likely to be experienced in the next 30 years including many influenced by global warming.
finished your research?
.... it is time to save the world
Now you have finished your basic research it is time to start campaigning for a safe climate, go to our "Getting Ready" campaign page to find out how to set up your campaign, lobby your councillors communicate the climate emergency and much more.
.... it is time to save the world
Now you have finished your basic research it is time to start campaigning for a safe climate, go to our "Getting Ready" campaign page to find out how to set up your campaign, lobby your councillors communicate the climate emergency and much more.
