Is There a Case for Climate Austerity?
Ensuring we meet a different future from the one we are currently expecting will mean battling the monumental global threat of climate change. This, argues Rajan Mehta, author of Backstage Climate: The Science and Politics Behind Climate Change, will require large scale systemic changes as well as a willingness of individuals to make sacrifices for the greater good.
Climate experts recommend that we should not allow the average global temperature to rise above 2 degree Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels. This target has been agreed by 196 countries that signed the Paris Agreement.
Experts have also worked out various scenarios for a remaining carbon budget (RCB), which tells us just how much additional carbon dioxide we humans can afford to emit before we cross the set target of temperature rise with a certain probability. The RCB for a 50 per cent probability of crossing the 2 degrees temperature rise is around 1,200 gigatons carbon dioxide, which works out to around twenty-four years at the present rate of around 50 gigatons carbon dioxide per year that we humans are emitting. The same RCB for a 50 per cent probability of crossing the 1.5 degree temperature rise is just 250 gigatons carbon dioxide as of January 2023, signifying that we have only four to five years left. The recommendation is clear—we must immediately go on a carbon-free diet if we want to keep our planet liveable.
We know of a similar phenomenon in economics called austerity. An expansionist economic phase wherein a lot of money is being spent, is usually followed by a recession, auguring tough financial times. We have been reckless with carbon dioxide emissions that are causing global warming. Should governments, companies and people wake up to our planetary doctor’s advice and go on a carbon (read carbon dioxide) free diet? Yes, if we want a healthy tomorrow. No, if we don’t care.
Just as in economics, where we adopt austerity to get things back in order, does the climate crisis call for climate austerity? A conscious call to everyone to adopt frugal and restrained behaviour as regards carbon dioxide emitting activities that lead to global warming?
Going on a carbon-free diet will not be easy as it will impact our economy, our growth and our lifestyles in the short term. It calls for some sacrific...
Climate experts recommend that we should not allow the average global temperature to rise above 2 degree Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels. This target has been agreed by 196 countries that signed the Paris Agreement.
Experts have also worked out various scenarios for a remaining carbon budget (RCB), which tells us just how much additional carbon dioxide we humans can afford to emit before we cross the set target of temperature rise with a certain probability. The RCB for a 50 per cent probability of crossing the 2 degrees temperature rise is around 1,200 gigatons carbon dioxide, which works out to around twenty-four years at the present rate of around 50 gigatons carbon dioxide per year that we humans are emitting. The same RCB for a 50 per cent probability of crossing the 1.5 degree temperature rise is just 250 gigatons carbon dioxide as of January 2023, signifying that we have only four to five years left. The recommendation is clear—we must immediately go on a carbon-free diet if we want to keep our planet liveable.
We know of a similar phenomenon in economics called austerity. An expansionist economic phase wherein a lot of money is being spent, is usually followed by a recession, auguring tough financial times. We have been reckless with carbon dioxide emissions that are causing global warming. Should governments, companies and people wake up to our planetary doctor’s advice and go on a carbon (read carbon dioxide) free diet? Yes, if we want a healthy tomorrow. No, if we don’t care.
Just as in economics, where we adopt austerity to get things back in order, does the climate crisis call for climate austerity? A conscious call to everyone to adopt frugal and restrained behaviour as regards carbon dioxide emitting activities that lead to global warming?
Going on a carbon-free diet will not be easy as it will impact our economy, our growth and our lifestyles in the short term. It calls for some sacrifice. Government budgets will need to be diverted to climate-focused projects, requiring foresight from the ruling parties.
Climate austerity will have to be adopted by all nations, as climate is a global phenomenon. Some countries may feel exploited for having to give up their growth to clean up the mess created by the developed world. There is truth in it but just like the human body, you cannot administer a carbon-free diet to selective parts. Developing countries especially need to be careful as the adverse impact of climate change will be felt most severely by them.
Industrialised countries will be the first to develop climate adaptation and resilience solutions. With the strength of money, technology and systems, they will be able to take care of their infrastructure and people. Our best course therefore is to tame nature by going on a carbon-free diet and avoid a situation where we have to face its wrath. This is not to say that the developed world should go scot-free. We need to hold them accountable for their historical reckless emissions. If we cut down one ton of carbon dioxide, we must demand, and make sure, that the developed world cuts down much more.
Companies too must become carbon austere. If society is under a climate threat, then businesses should be worried for their own long-term future. A quick, austere need to reduce their carbon footprint by using sustainable materials, circular design concepts, energy-efficient processes and effective waste-handling procedures. Companies who follow these practices will not only be rewarded by their customers but by the financial markets as well. Investors care about the long-term sustenance of businesses and price their stocks accordingly.
We, as people, have always risen to collective challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic being the most recent one. Climate change can also be seen as a pandemic. Instead of the virus proliferating everywhere, it is the spread and growth of equally small carbon dioxide molecules in the air that is causing climate havoc. During the pandemic, we responded by staying indoors, avoiding social contact, wearing masks and helping people in need. In the current climate situation, we need to respond similarly by consuming fewer fossil fuels, pooling cars, switching to plant-based diets, saving electricity wherever we can, being content with smaller houses, disposing of waste prudently and emitting less carbon dioxide.
But we need time to transition our energy to renewable sources, decarbonise our industry and change our agricultural practices. In another decade, we will hopefully have the technology to affordably suck out the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and store it safely underground. Austerity for the next few years is therefore called for, so that we avoid crossing the remaining carbon budget.
It is clear where the buck stops—with us, individuals. Unless we, as consumers, do not demand low-carbon and sustainable products, manufacturers will not produce them. We must demand austerity from our governments and cooperate with them as they bring in new rules and regulations to decelerate emissions.
The question is, who should or will declare climate austerity? Is it the UN, individual countries, industry associations or civil society organisations?
Edited and reproduced with permissions from Backstage Climate: The Science and Politics Behind Climate Change by Rajan Mehta, published by Westland Books
Rajan Mehta has been a serial tech entrepreneur and earlier worked with companies like Motorola and Nortel in senior positions in the telecom sector. He is currently building Climate Action Labs to research and push initiatives that can help avoid a climate crisis.