Whilst Scotland leads the way in terms of ambition to reduce emissions, it is in leading by example in moving towards a wellbeing-based economy that we could really set the standard for other countries to follow.
Everyone has different perceptions of risk, depending on our life experiences and exposures to threats. Having experienced some active sports in my youth I’ve developed a keen interest in risk perception. As a scientist who has spent twenty years examining climate change, I have a good appreciation of the scale of risks we all face from global temperature increases. And it scares me rigid.
Unfortunately, it is very hard for us all as individuals to translate what we see in the media about climate change into tangible risks to us, our families and communities. What does a 2°C global temperature rise really mean? What’s the difference between a 2°C and 3°C rise?
Considering the long-term future and the global scale is hard, even for experts. To put this into context, a 2-3°C drop was enough in the past to cause an ice age. There is a wealth of research that provides vivid indications of what the consequences of different temperature increases are likely to mean.
Perpetual growth – our increasing stress on Nature
The risks are not just about a rise in global temperature and associated changes in climate. It’s the other things that are happening at the same time: the rapid loss of biodiversity; the degradation of the ecosystems that provide our ‘life support systems’ – clean air and water, climate regulation, provision of food. It is the combined effect and downstream consequences of all these things that we need to worry about. This raises the question: what is causing all these threats?
Fundamentally, the scale of risk comes from the pressures caused by our economic system being based on perpetual growth, driving increasing stresses on Nature.
In our daily lives it is hard to see where the risk comes from. We perceive stability in our familiar surroundings: there is food on the shelves and things we see every day appear the same. Unlike some people in other parts of the world experiencing more severe climate change impacts, we do not suffer the consequences, yet. Hence there is little or no indication of the threat and our avoidance of risk is poor.
Analysis of data, however, allows us to step back and examine changes over time and space – weather variability, how many bees there are, deforestation rates, loss of soil and so on. This gives us insight into how stable our surroundings really are. Information about these changes can be publicised, but most people struggle to put them into perspective, to look forward to see how those changes might affect them. The challenge is to put the risk in context, and communicate it so that everyone can be better informed.
We need to reduce emissions immediately
A large part of my work is projecting forward into the future. I’m not a time traveller – I use computer models and data analysis tools to compare things that have been observed with estimates based on climate projections. This enables foresight of what’s to come.
Hindsight allows us to learn from our experiences, but for climate, the past is not necessarily a good guide to the future. The benefit of foresight, as provided by climate projections, is that we can explore the range of conditions we might experience and prepare better to reduce risks and adapt to change and opportunities.
The risks, however, far outweigh any benefits. The cost of adapting now is very small compared to costs of trying to cope and adapt later. We are now moving to a period of damage limitation. By examining the causes of the pressures leading to higher levels of risk – our increasing consumerism, unsustainable use of natural resources etc – we can assess the long-term suitability of our current economic and social systems.
To reduce the pressures on our climate and Nature, we fundamentally need to change the basis for our economy and reduce emissions immediately. If we do not, future generations’ situation will rapidly move towards one of fighting for survival.
The 16-year-old schoolgirl climate protester Greta Thunberg said: “It’s time to panic”. Whilst a useful call to arms and recognition of the emergency we are in, we need a very well-considered approach.
Rather than panic, there is an urgent need to act very quickly and decisively, to transition to an economy based on wellbeing and sustainability where we reinvest in ecosystems, rather than one driven by the need for destructive, perpetual growth.
It’s not too late
Most immediately we need to reduce emissions and improve our natural and technical capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s not too late, there are solutions. Some are already being implemented, like reforestation and renewable energy. Others are ready to be brought in, such as replacing GDP as a measure of “development” with wellbeing-based indices that enable progress to sustainability.
To start with, there are two things that need to happen in parallel:
Firstly, we all need to recognise the risk so that we understand the need to change, making new behaviours and approaches more acceptable and implementable;
Secondly, we need very positive multi-lateral leadership working under a clear societally-defined vision of our future economic and societal system.
To consider the first point, let’s try and put the risks into perspective. Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported on the consequences of reaching a 1.5°C temperature rise above the pre-industrial period. It highlighted substantial consequences to society, risks to ecosystems and threats of accelerated climate change.
We are currently on track for a 3°C rise. This is not a linear increase in associated risk. It’s an exponential one.
We also need to include the risks of tipping points where natural systems change into irreversible new states which will accelerate climate change. Examples include thawing in the Arctic leading to releases of large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, causing even more warming; or drying of the Amazon basin reducing carbon capture by forests, increasing chances of fires releasing more carbon.
In short, a 1.5°C increase has a high-risk factor, but with room for optimism that we can manage change to achieve a stable climate. A 2°C rise and we’re looking at a very substantial risk of loss of ecosystem health – reducing or ending ability to function and provide us with goods and services we rely on. Severe disruption to economies and civil stability will follow, with greatly increased probability of going past tipping points that lead to runaway climate change. 3°C doesn’t bear thinking about.
Scotland can lead by example
If you have children and/or a pension fund, you need to ask yourself how secure either are in the future, given the assumptions for economic and societal stability that underpin expectations as to how either of these will mature. If fundamental parts of our ecosystems are not able to function under such a large temperature rise and associated climate disruption, the stability of economies is severely jeopardised.
Research tells us that crop yields on a global scale will decrease. Extreme weather events are increasingly likely. Enforced migration becomes more probable, with people having no choice but to move. The UK imports about 45% of its food, but if exporters are experiencing shortages, how secure is that supply?
Whilst Scotland leads the way in terms of ambition to reduce emissions, it is in leading by example in moving towards a wellbeing-based economy that we could really set the standard for other countries to follow.
As we envision Scotland’s future agriculture, a key message is that it could be relatively ‘insulated’ against the impacts of climate change, at least in the near future, compared to other places. Given our unique climate and geographical position, whilst we may experience changes, they will likely be less severe than in many other parts of the world.
Even within the UK, Scotland’s climate may experience less severe changes than the south. To illustrate this, the James Hutton Institute has mapped agrometeorological indicators (such as growing season length, number of plant heat stress days per year etc.) which – when run as a time series animation – show that Scotland’s climate remains relatively ‘stable’. Using high spatial resolution crop modelling we have shown there is potential for crop yields in some years to increase in the future, for example spring barley, by about 1 ton per hectare.
However, another key message is that there will likely be an increase in ‘bad years’ when yields decrease in Scotland, mostly due to water limitations particularly in the spring. As the climate becomes more variable, so will our agriculture productivity. This implies an element of competitive advantage over our southern or EU neighbours but masks the wider global context of risks and opportunities. It also gives the incorrect impression that climate change may be good for Scotland.
Describing our position as ‘relatively insulated’ brings no value or benefit as the threats to Scotland cannot be seen in isolation. If emissions continue at their current rate, any temporary improvement in our local climate will be more than cancelled out by longer-term (mid-century) changes elsewhere.
Change is coming: threat or opportunity?
Given the current interdependencies of economy and welfare on global trade, while Scotland may still produce food and drink for export and home use, climate change threatens the functioning of ecosystems all around the world and their ability to support economies.
A further key message is that the climate part of the future may be the easier thing to estimate – at least the climate follows general rules of physics and chemistry: humans and their impacts on economics, policies and behaviours are eminently more unpredictable.
As the global population increases and growing affluence places increasing demands on natural resources, biodiversity is decreasing and land degrading. The fundamental properties and processes enabling ecosystems to function are under threat from climate change, pollution and inappropriate land use – for example: palm oil, livestock grazing on cleared rainforest and overall neglect through lack of reinvestment in maintaining ecosystem health.
Personally, I see combined effects of climate change and ecological degradation and consequent issues that pose such substantial risks as an opportunity as well as a threat.
The need to adapt provides an opportunity to reflect on how we are developing economically and as a society. It seems a pity to have developed so far as a global society and achieved so much, only to see it reduced or even lost because we didn’t take care of the fundamental thing that has enable such development: the health of our planet.
Recognising the risks of our current trajectory must surely lead us to conclude that we need to do things differently. As Greta Thunberg says, “change is coming, whether you like it or not”. The current risks impose the opportunity to evolve in a considered way, shifting by design to a sustainable, Earth-friendly economic system. The alternative is to wait and see what Nature does, and then react. I think Nature will be very unforgiving. The old adage applies; prevention is better than cure.
Featured image by Rob Bruce: Rannoch Moor temperature inversion; secondary image by Fay Young
Leave a Reply