Post #1: Climate Change – Have You Aped On Earth?
Disclaimer: All views expressed are my own.
Welcome to Ape On Earth Blog Post #1.
Perhaps you’re here to find out if climate change matters to you? Allow me to walk you through.
It’s already the year 2022.
According to the UN IPCC,
Remember this. The two targets serve as major milestones for us to work towards reconciling the 300-500 billion tonnes Global Carbon Budget (based on >50% likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5 deg C).
It’s so important that a countdown timer to the latest upcoming CO2-eq emission rate target milestone has been made the PRIME feature of the Ape On Earth homepage.
The IPCC (sometimes referred to as UN IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. They are the chief point of reference when it comes to all matters regarding Climate Change. There is always a risk of misinformation whenever you rely on information cited outside of IPCC sources. So all I’m saying is…be careful out there.
Unfortunately at present, the world is still not close to being on track to meet either target. In Aug 2021, Dr. Winston Chow, a fellow Singaporean who is a volunteering lead author in the UN IPCC AR6 WG2 Report, explains in an article by CNA,
That means early 2030s. Note that his 50 billion tonnes per year refers to the rate of emission of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) gases, which include other greenhouse gases such as Methane, Nitrous Oxide, et. al., based on data nearer to year 2010. But more recently in 2019, the CO2-eq emission rate has since risen to 59 billion tonnes per year, and CO2 emissions for that year alone accounted for approx. 44.84 billion tonnes (76% of CO2-eq), according to data from UN IPCC AR6 WG3 Report.
And so we are left with slightly under years till the 2030 milestone, by no means a long time if we consider the systemic inefficiencies of the world.
We are to blame. And yes, I mean every one of us.
I need your help.
It’s not too late. Solutions exist as long as we care to look, and spend with care.
Allow me to share two of my favourite quotes below…
“The Greatest Threat to Our Planet Is the Belief That Someone Else Will Save It”
“After 3.8 billion years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival.“
Most of our working class today were barely schooled on sustainability in their time and therefore leads to the principal case for lifelong learning.
The more one learns about sustainability, the more one discovers how far we have fallen as a responsible cohabitant of our planet.
Sure, one might be tempted to point fingers. But we can’t just stop there. In the end we all got to pull our own weight.
Fun fact: During an interview with Mothership, Dr. Winston Chow, a Singaporean climate scientist, Associate Prof at SMU, and father of two, shared that,
awww…
Climate Change: A Wicked Problem
I recommend Singaporeans beginning on their sustainability pilgrimage to watch the 2021 TV series, “Climate Change: A Wicked Problem”, hosted by our Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information & Ministry of Health, Dr. Janil Puthucheary. I give the series much credit, because above the engaging coverage of climate issues wrapped in the local context, there is arguably no better way to describe climate change, except to label it a Wicked Problem.
According to wikipedia,
If you find Singapore’s HDB cat ban or the fight against secondhand cigarette smoke frustrating, try climate change.
Why the blog name, “Ape On Earth”?
First let’s get the obvious and boring out of the way…
Human ≈ Ape?
Ape on Earth? 🦧🌍
Well…you get the idea. Nothing fancy. But wait! There’s more…
Long before anyone was “apeing” on tokens [insert your favourite Crypto/NFT], we were already kinda “apeing” on Earth.
The idea is that perhaps we humans bought into all our planet had to offer, without first doing our due diligence.
So, would you say you “aped” on Earth too?
Why start Ape On Earth blog now? Isn’t it “Too Late”?
For those of you who still ponder whether Global Warming due to Climate Change is “fake news”, or a result of the climate system’s “natural” variability alone, take a look at the data below tracing global surface temperatures all the way back from pre-industrial levels in the 19th century.
Source: Screenshot of visualisation video by NASA Climate Change, using temperatures based on GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4) estimates.
If you trace the visualisation from the bottom, before the 1970s when carbon emissions had not gotten out of hand, prior fluctuations in temperature were more likely due to the climate system’s natural variability (variations in climate that are caused by processes other than human influence) that posed no real threat to humans.
Yet, after the 1970s, you will notice that there was a very clear acceleration of the increase in global surface temperatures. If one relied on historic temperature patterns, one might be inclined to deduce that temperatures would come back down, but it just never did.
Recently, it even flew past the +1 deg C mark, and yet our annual global emission rates have yet to peak, i.e. they are still beating all-time highs with every passing year!
The unintended reductions in emissions due to Covid-19, was just a band aid on a gaping wound.
Some of you may wonder if it’s too late. Who can blame you?
But for context, the Paris Agreement was only adopted in 2015, and entered into force in 2016.
Singapore signed it on 22 April 2016. And our own Singapore Green Plan 2030 was unveiled almost 5 years later, on 10 Feb 2021.
These critical landmarks may be argued to have come late, but still, better late than never.
We still have a window of opportunity to fight and avert the most devastating climate effects.
What do the latest Climate Model Simulations tell us?
Observe the chart below. The data is based on CMIP6, the latest generation of climate model simulations, and all four of the scenarios shown on the visualisation’s left axis assume moderate to no future carbon emissions mitigation, i.e. status quo.
Source: Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts. Exceedance year for 1.5C across all currently available CMIP6 model runs for SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. Each dot represents an individual model, while horizontal bars show the range across all models. Observational warming since pre-industrial through to 2020 is assumed to be 1.17C, based on the Global Warming Index.
In all four scenarios, the World will likely exceed 1.5 deg C as early as 2026, with a central estimate of between 2030–2032.
Can someone remind me what year is it now?
Are you really sure you wanna stop at just moderate mitigation efforts?
The 2015 Paris Agreement
(Remember this too. It’s the best weapon that we can yield against climate crime at the moment)
Paris Agreement:
Here, “levels” refer to global surface temperatures.
Why the 2015 Paris Agreement matters?
Because the agreement is a legally binding international treaty and as of the date of this article, 195 out of 197 parties worldwide have signed it. It is considered a major turning point in the history of litigation and climate justice as it “contains strong language of legal effect, leaving no discretion for parties to follow divergent temperature goals”.
In order to fully appreciate the power of this agreement, environmental groups such as Client Earth, Earthjustice, MilieuDefensie, and Urgenda in recent times have brought businesses and governments to court over the quality of their climate transition plans by leveraging the Paris Agreement and Human Rights duties, and won.
Like I said, it’s the best weapon that we can yield against climate crime at the moment. Good to remember.
Preserving Climate Justice Above Politics – A Test For Government Systems
Government systems, such as those which are subject to rapid cycles of democratic power renewal, have shown incompatibility with achieving effective carbon emissions mitigation since the signing of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
It seems that addressing climate change has to be dealt with above politics, and perhaps better dealt with in the realm of Justice.
This writeup by Dave Margulius provides much needed insight on the subject.
Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law compiles and maintains useful databases and resources — on its own and in collaboration with other institutions — to facilitate access to the latest information, law, and scholarship on particular climate change-related topics.
Simply, rapid climate action and results are a human right.
For too long, people have tolerated climate crime, accidental or otherwise.
There is no time or space left, right or left wing, but for convergent climate action, should we hope for overall success.
Why limit temperature rise to 1.5 deg C?
(agree on this or Climate Change will never matter)
Exceeding the global 1.5 deg C threshold will bear risks of triggering more extreme weather that threatens human health, crops and key ecosystems such as forests and coral reefs, according to the UN IPCC. Also,
says Maria Ivanova, a professor of global governance at University of Massachusetts Boston.
I tried to digest the science behind it. For policymakers, and those who mean business, you may want to check out the supporting science, documented in the latest key UN IPCC reports (#ClimateReport):
- Global Warming of 1.5 ºC – UN IPCC Special Report’s Summary for Policymakers
- The Physical Science Basis – UN IPCC AR6 WG1 Report’s Summary for Policymakers
- Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – UN IPCC AR6 WG2 Report’s Summary for Policymakers
- Mitigation of Climate Change – UN IPCC AR6 WG3 Report’s Summary for Policymakers
Even more recently, I found that should one prefer getting your climate change answers via an FAQ format, try clicking on “Frequently Asked Questions” starting from the report links I provided above. Don’t be surprised if you find most of your burning questions answered already!
All that factual doom and gloom reporting and yet for some reason, I’m still not convinced the world’s Spidey-Sense is tingling. Are our emergency alarms even working?
I could not decide whether one is simply desensitised, or that one’s practical senses will ever have the operational range to reliably monitor all of life’s global support systems at threat, from the comforts of one’s home.
I mean…do we find ourselves deep in the forests often? Do we find ourselves at work saving coral reefs every other day? Chances for most, is no. All that most of us might recall, is the occasional and abstract news episode (IF it catches our attention), covering those who do.
Now, even attention is a diminishing resource. On top of that, that single episode is but one out of millions, in the grand scheme of climate change, on the ground. Will watching one episode be enough? Is one episode more important than another? God knows. The thing is, as some Singaporeans might say, “Where got time?”.
Even some specialists from the scientific community have come to a revelation, forcing themselves out of their daily work routine, in order to work on the bigger picture. According to an article by GQ,
* citation needed on 86%, suspect the correct figure to be in the 60-70s, depending on year of reference. Readers please take caution when quoting the above.
I tried to channel the typical man on the street and I thought through the climate risks reported once more. Perhaps some of the following casual responses to climate risks might strike a chord:
Rising temperatures…
“Use 5-ticks Aircon lor.”
Rising sea levels…
Deforestation…
Loss of crops…
“Import from “elsewhere” lor. Gahmen also got stockpile mah.”
Loss of coral reefs…
“Singapore got coral meh? Why need coral ar?”
Loss of biodiversity…
“Singapore got otters crossing road leh…not enough meh?”
Human health…
“Singapore doctor very good…don’t need scared.”
And so life goes on for the man on the street… “Business As Usual”.
But really, that’s precisely the problem. Some effects of Climate Change will be irreversible. At the current rate of environmental degradation, it will no doubt deliver a slow deathblow to us all, though some will receive it faster, or more cruelly than others.
Even if the effects of Climate Change are slow to be felt in Singapore, it doesn’t change the now well-known fact that the world’s atmosphere can’t take in additional carbon emissions without permanent and verifiable Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects. It doesn’t change the fact that we need to reconcile the global carbon budget and keep temperatures from rising above 1.5 deg C.
Perhaps I thought to challenge myself even further and try to make the problem of climate change more layman and relatable to most, if not for all of us. With faith, I pray that it works.
Humour me.
Analogy of the Human Body: Climate Change Common Sense
Imagine the Earth is your biological body and can only function optimally within the body system’s natural variability range of 36 to 37 degrees Celsius. Abuse your body badly enough and that may cause your body temperature to rise by a mere 2 degrees Celsius higher, but even that is enough to earn yourself a high fever. Haven’t you always acted without fail to bring your fever down? If not for yourself, then as a caregiver? So why fail to bring our World’s fever down now?
Then some might be tempted to say, “Fever ah…take painkiller lor…” But guess what? Painkillers are good for temporary fever relief but do nothing to cure the underlying illness. The big picture is if you continue to abuse your body still, and do not treat the underlying illness, it escalates and may result in irreversible damage to your body.
Likewise for example, you can use air-conditioning to provide temporary relief to Global Warming effects due to Climate Change but once you head outdoors into the real world, you deservedly face the living hell you created. No amount of prescribed air-conditioning can save the World if its underlying illness is not treated.
Climate change is best managed when each nation responsibly manages its own climate averages based on its own pre-industrial characteristics.
A nation’s optimal temperature range will depend on its geography. For Singapore, I believe we can manage our climate at the national level. But for bigger countries, their climate may even have to be managed at the state level in order to be equally effective.
Disrupting the climate even just within Singapore, will have cumulative knock-on effects on the entire world’s climate balance.
And let’s not forget Singapore is highly dependent on imports to survive. “Singapore imports over 90% of the food consumed in the country”, according to Singapore Food Agency (SFA).
By persistently ignoring climate change at home, isn’t that biting the global hand that feeds you?
Why compare to pre-industrial levels?
(what year is considered pre-industrial?)
There are disagreements amongst experts as to which year is considered the end of the pre-industrial period. However, UN IPCC reports generally refer to the period from 1850–1900.
Technicalities aside, it is more important we understand why this period was referenced in the Paris Agreement. Globally, there needs to be an agreement on a baseline year to refer to, in order to determine the target optimal temperature range for each country to maintain.
It assumes that every country was operating a good daily temperature range before the baseline year.
Naturally, the baseline year should be set before the onset of humanity’s aggressive greenhouse gas emissions (predominantly carbon dioxide) as a byproduct of our economic activities.
Since industrialisation is generally agreed to be the cause for the onset of abnormally high greenhouse gas emissions by man, naturally we refer to the year before that as our baseline.
But some may argue that 1850 was so long ago.
Wouldn’t past carbon emissions naturally cycle out of our atmosphere by now?
Paraphrasing from the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 Report FAQ 12.3, CO2’s lifetime in the atmosphere is very complicated and hard to pin down. As a result, it can remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia.
And yes my friend, that basically means that ALL the carbon emissions accumulated in our atmosphere by our activities so far, possibly date all the way back to the year 1850! Doesn’t mean if something is invisible to us means it’s not there.
And yet we ignorantly continue to further accelerate our emissions every day…
Reconciling the Global Carbon Budget
Remember this? You might recall that I mentioned several times in this article that we need to reconcile the Global Carbon Budget to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5 deg C. If you have understood all previous sections of this article, you would now be prepared to fully appreciate the carbon budget.
So what is the carbon budget?
Since the UN IPCC SR1.5 Special Report of Oct 2018, there have been regular calculations made for an absolute maximum amount of additional net global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that we can still afford to put into our atmosphere from the start of 2020, before certain undesirable temperature scenarios play out.
It is important to note that this is an absolute budget, and not to be confused with an annual budget. You won’t get a new budget once this one is used up.
This is why achieving global net-zero is not a good-to-have, it’s an eventual must-have.
Source: UN IPCC AR6 WG1 Report’s Summary for Policymakers. Estimates of historical CO2 emissions and remaining carbon budgets.
From the table above, for a 67% likelihood that we will meet the Paris Agreement target and limit warming to 1.5 deg C, we can only emit a further 400 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 from the start of 2020.
However, if you don’t like the odds at 67%, and prefer 83%, then we can only emit a further 300 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 from the start of 2020 instead.
According to the UN IPCC AR6 WG3 Report, the World emitted 59 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2-eq in 2019. It was also indicated that 24% of CO2-eq emissions was attributed to non-CO2 gases. That means we can deduce that CO2 emissions in 2019 alone was around 44.84 billion tonnes (Gt).
Even if we ignore the fact that the main trend for global GHG emissions has been a rising one year-on-year, and assume that we are able to at least maintain our 2019 CO2 emission rate, we have until the end of 2028 (67% chance to limit warming to 1.5 deg C), or until the end of third quarter of 2026 (83% chance to limit warming to 1.5 deg C) before we use up our ONE and ONLY Global Carbon Budget.
IPCC lead author Prof. Heleen De Coninck, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation and Climate Change at Eindhoven University of Technology, said,
“I think the report tells us that we’ve reached the now-or-never point of limiting warming to 1.5C”.
If we cannot keep absolute additional emissions below these magic numbers, and if we cannot reach global net-zero emissions before we blow up the Carbon Budget, we will fail the Paris Agreement targets. We will fail our own generation. And we will fail our children. Some, not even born yet.
If Climate Change Matters, What Do I Do?
At the very least, be aware that climate change is a real problem to you.
And not because I said so. It has to come from within.
Start at home and your own circle of influence.
Speak up 🙂
Pay attention to what you spend on. Companies utilising impulse purchase tactics for unsustainable products/services might need to see regulation. Ideally, all future purchases should be an educated one. Every dollar spent is a vote for a product or service you want to see in the future.
And for those willing to mitigate and adapt, let nothing stop you.
Habits die hard. And it will involve painful change, especially where it encroaches on personal comfort. Singaporeans are too familiar with measuring one’s success by career and wealth but what if through success we still fail miserably to fight climate change? Would our career and wealth matter at the end, if we fail ourselves, and our children?
Who then do we turn to? If not me and you, and the rest of us, then who?
How likely are you to respond constructively when someone tells you that you ought to change your attitude? No offence intended. But that’s precisely what it takes just to begin the fight against climate change.
Would you do it?
Most of us who already care, will discover that we will begin mitigating/adapting even when the conditions for change and the outcome of our actions are less than ideal.
You may be viewed as extreme.
You may be ridiculed.
Worst, you get ignored.
But draw strength and remember, nothing worth it ever comes easy.
What’s the point?!
In 2022, a climate conscious one may encounter the following dilemmas and feel eager to scream, “What’s the point?!” –
- I’ll switch to a 100% Solar or Green Electricity plan. Depending on which I choose, it may just cost me slightly over $10 more a month (based on Feb 2022 rates, and usage of 1209kWh per month). Perhaps I can nudge the power grid to get off carbon emitting fossil fuels. But there are still cheaper traditional, non-green options. I don’t understand RECs, carbon credits, or other carbon offset facilities. Even if I go ahead, is my electricity really green? What’s the point?! Consider further reading, “How to support Renewable Energy (RE) FROM Singapore?”.
- I’ll switch to support companies which claim sustainability in their DNA. But it seems they don’t recognise the value of their own products once they reach their designed end-of-life. They don’t ensure or maintain recollection facilities for my used product. Even if they do, they are not transparent about their processes for materials recovery, refurbishment, or remanufacture of their products. Where’s “The Real Circular Economy”? What’s the point?! Consider further reading, “Waste Cannot Be Left to Thrive”.
- I’ll retrofit my existing home with the latest Passive Design best practices for improved internal thermal comfort. But some of the most effective solutions require extensive work to the external facade. It’s sure to be expensive. Are there low-interest financing options? Do I qualify? Should I rally my neighbours for bulk rates? Can I do it on my own? What’s the point?! Consider further reading, “BCA Green Mark (Ape On Earth’s Household Edition)”.
I could go on and on…
There’s absolutely no way I can provide you with 10-year series model solutions to the above scenarios. Who am I but just an Ape On Earth.
But one thing is clear. If you carried a positive attitude, the decisions you make would have led us closer to the goal of averting climate change in the long run.
For example, regarding the potential dilemma of purchasing an EV, a climate extremist may say, “No cars!”, while a more average climate conscious person may choose to buy an EV instead of an ICE, trusting that one’s nation’s energy mix will accelerate towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) in the following years. But would you not agree that it’s a win either way since both already carry a positive attitude towards climate change in the long run?
It’s ok even if our short term decisions are slightly different. After all, we are all wired with a different set of talents, and that’s why I said at the very start of my article,
“I need your help.”
Don’t limit your kindness and creativity.
The long term answers to the climate change problem may not be obvious, and may demand a greater empathy you never knew you had. Awaken the sentinel in you!
The right actions may matter less today but will be all that mattered in the long run.
Change will take time. For those of us who know why we have to mitigate/adapt, and are willing to, may we guide the way tomorrow, and fiercely guard our optimism whilst doing so.
And yes, I lied. It wasn’t a 5 min read. But it might win you back decades. Forgive me.
Photo by Manny Becerra on Unsplash
SideQuest: Obtain an intimate understanding of what Greenwashing is. It’s quite a fuzzy topic at the moment and needs immediate support from the legal community for a legalese expansion exercise. Contribute here in the “Call For New Greenwashing Terms”. Cast your vote in a poll for new Greenwashing Terms!
And for all readers who have made it this far…
Thank you. It literally means the world 🙂
Watch this space.