One expert lays out the stark reality of what’s needed to avoid climate catastrophe

Dead trees in the desert

Writer Mark Lynas has presented the facts and figures that are driving the planet towards climate catastrophe. His Twitter thread lays bare the scale of the task that stands before all of us. But it also gives hope that change is possible.

“No new fossil fuelled infrastructure, anywhere, ever.”

On 1 July, scientific journal Nature published an unedited manuscript detailing how our present society is on course for catastrophic levels of carbon emissions. The next day, Lynas, who has written a number of books on climate breakdown including High Tide and Six Degrees, took to Twitter to explain the findings in simple terms:

He first showed that the “existing infrastructure” commits the planet to more than 1.5°C of warming. This is the benchmark that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called “necessary” and “vital”:

However, there is also a huge amount of new fossil fuel infrastructure across the world that’s already underway. Lynas explained that these new plants amount to about 188 gigatonnes (Gt). That means built or planned plants will emit a total of 846Gt. As a result, Lynas said that not only do all “planned, permitted and under construction” plants need to be cancelled but:

If these steps aren’t taken, he said, then the planet will be on course for 2°C of warming. And even that means catastrophe:

But even keeping within the 2°C ‘budget’ will require countries and markets to take big steps. Lynas said it means we must start “reducing emissions by 5% per year” immediately. However, 2018 represented an “all-time high” for carbon emissions and the Met Office predicted that 2019 will result in yet another increase.

We’re on course for 4C warming

In the end, Lynas pulled no punches when he stated what’s needed to stop climate disasters. And the solution is no small task:

The Nature report said that the “most cost-effective” area for immediate change would be in ‘retiring’ electricity and industrial infrastructure.

If we don’t take action on this scale, though, then the alternative will be even tougher. Globally, “current policies” will take the planet to 4°C of warming. And Lynas’s response to warming of that level was simple: “*shudder*”.

Climate analysis website Carbon Brief created an interactive infographic on the possible impact of temperature rises, including those between 3.5°C and 4.5°C.

Take action

The UK government has committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This would put it on course to stay below the 1.5°C warming benchmark. However, as Carbon Brief pointed out on 12 June, the government’s figures don’t include heavily polluting industries such as aviation and shipping. It also includes using ‘carbon offsets’, which experts have discredited as “worse than nothing”.

Even in the face of impending disaster, the government is dragging its heels while pretending to care. This is unacceptable. Climate catastrophe will affect everyone, not just those creating policies. So it’s up to all of us to start taking action in defence of the planet.

Featured image via pxhere

Get involved

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Fairly devastating reading as it is, neither Mark Lynas in his twitter stream, nor Glen Black in the article, seem to have accounted for the fact that all IPCC 2 degrees scenarios have negative emissions technology built in – that is, to produce RCPs for 2 degrees, the IPCC’s underlying models (the IAMs) all assume that technology we do not currently have will be developed and successfully rolled out at a global scale.

      I’m not sure where that leaves us, beyond eradicating emissions from fossil fuels, bio-fuels and cement forthwith in the hope that the knock on effects from that in terms of land use, will see us sail closer to 2 degrees than 3 degrees.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.