Climate Change: Rising Risks, Slowing Progress and the Case for Dual Action

Climate Change

In recent months it has become increasingly clear that the planet is facing the consequences of human activity. When it comes to the environment, one only has to look at events around the world to recognise the growing damage. In July, severe floods in Germany followed extreme rainfall, including in areas where daily rainfall exceeded the monthly average. Hundreds of people were injured or missing, and the death toll rose to nearly two hundred. Towards the end of July, China also experienced flooding due to record levels of rainfall, causing more than three hundred fatalities. Canada faced widespread wildfires throughout the summer.

However, it may not be possible to attribute all of these events entirely or directly to climate change. This is particularly true for flooding or extreme rainfall. Some argue that while climate change increases the severity of weather disasters, other factors may have caused them. In Germany, people understood the floods to have resulted from a low‑pressure system. In Canada, people more commonly attribute wildfires to lightning than to human‑caused climate change. In China's Yellow River Basin, river systems often flood, and dam construction and water management systems may have contributed to the disaster. This suggests that governments may also need to focus on developing warning systems, response systems and strengthening infrastructure. Climate scientists increasingly discuss an approach that prioritises defence in addition to reducing emissions.

Although we may not be able to attribute any single event directly to climate change, there is consensus that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of disasters. For example, climate scientists described the extreme heat in Canada as virtually impossible without human‑caused climate change. The frequency and magnitude of these events, combined with comments that it is surprising how soon we are seeing the effects of climate change, suggest we need to improve faster than we currently are. The urgency of the issue and countries' ability to respond to severe weather events have led some to question whether we still have time to reduce the potential effects of climate change. Some argue that efforts must now shift not only to reducing emissions but also to strengthening response and warning systems.

Global steps involved in improving emissions

Concern over the implications of rising global temperatures has led to various agreements and pacts aimed at slowing or reversing this increase. The Paris Agreement, launched in 2016 with the involvement of 196 parties, aims to keep the global temperature increase below two degrees Celsius because a rise above three degrees could cause drastic changes. Many countries have established their own targets and solutions to achieve this goal. One example is introducing carbon markets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the general outlook is that efforts to reduce emissions and limit global warming are progressing too slowly. For example, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, established in 2005, still faces difficulties, and China only recently launched its national carbon market. The large‑scale nature of projects aimed at reducing climate change means that they will take substantial time to produce the results envisioned in treaties such as the Paris Agreement. One may argue that, given the increasing frequency of weather disasters and rapidly rising temperatures, such efforts, while necessary, are not enough to protect against damage that may now be inevitable.

Adaptation and mitigation

The question then becomes how countries will prepare for climate change outcomes when those outcomes remain uncertain. An example of climate change adaptation is managing flood risk. This may include warning systems, flood defence and risk management. Projects such as the Thames Estuary Plan and Venice's flood defence system, MOSE, are examples of contingency plans that may be implemented more widely. The estimated cost of the Thames Estuary Plan in 2010 was £ 3.3 billion, and this estimate has since risen. MOSE cost seven billion euros. The high cost of climate change adaptation strategies highlights the importance of developed countries honouring their Paris Agreement commitments to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation.

This is important for two reasons. Firstly, the threat posed by climate change may be greater overall if developed countries do not honour their commitments to reduce emissions. Developing countries may experience even more damage than developed countries with adaptation strategies in place. Secondly, developing countries may struggle to implement such strategies without financial assistance. Therefore, developed countries must also honour their financial promises under the Paris Agreement. It also appears that developed countries themselves are only now beginning to recognise the importance of defence against the changes to come.

Over time, new agreements are likely to emerge and may place greater emphasis on contingency plans. It may no longer be sensible to ask whether we have time to save the planet or whether we should be looking for an alternative plan. Instead, the question may be why we are not doing both.