Jørgen M.B. Grønneberg Who can solve the climate crisis?
Kolofon Forlag AS 2020
The project is produced on behalf of Jørgen M.B. Grønneberg
All rights/responsibility for the content of the project are attributed to Jørgen M.B. Grønneberg Enquiries beyond ordering the product should be directed to Jørgen M.B. Grønneberg
ISBN 578-82-300-2105-5
Production: Kolofon Forlag AS, 2020
The book is available in bookshops, online bookshops and in our own store: www.kolofon.no/klimakrisen
The material is protected under the Copyright Act. Without express consent, copying, such as printing and other copying, is only permitted when authorised by law (copying for private use, quotation, etc.) or by agreement with Kopinor (www.kopinor.no). Utilisation in violation of the law or agreement may result in liability for damages and criminal liability.
This book begins where most of the world's climate reports end, by stating that it is "up to policy makers to decide" how to avoid excessive global warming.
Climate and leadership is the most important topic of our time.
Leadership is an exposed amalgamation of strategy and personality.
Strategy is about doing the important things right, on time. Your personality is about wisdom and charisma.
Out of 10 numbered copies, 1 to 5 are handed over to people who can help provide good answers to "HOW...?". - These are:
1. Siri Grønneberg: After falling in love at first sight 53 years ago, she has with great social wisdom and forbearance contributed to the author's well-being, so that this book could be written.
2. Her Royal Highness Princess Ingrid Alexandra: In her confirmation speech, she emphasised her commitment to the environment and allowed the day to be characterised by the future of the planet. In this way, she continues her role as a royal guide for the country and its people in a symbolic way.
3. Greta Thunberg: She is unrivalled in her demonstrated ability to conquer an entire world, with her generational demand for a sustainable world order. She points in the right direction when she says: "When we start acting, hope is everywhere. So instead of looking for hope - look for action. Then hope will come."
4. Erna Solberg: She is the leader of one of the country's two state-supporting parties, prime minister and prime ministerial candidate in the 2021 general election. - Therefore, she has access to arenas that should find the answer to "HOW", including the UN.
5. Jonas Gahr Støre: He is the leader of one of the country's two state parties, is a candidate for prime minister in the 2021 general election, and can therefore gain access to the same arenas.
Copies G to 10 are reserved for companies and individuals who, without knowledge of the book's content, want to help put the topic of CLIMATE AND LEADERSHIP high on national and international agendas. These are:
G. Norske Skog AS v/ CEO Sven Ombudstvedt: "Being able to document responsible business practices based on our values, policies and guidelines is important for a global company like Norske Skog."
7. Statkraft AS v/ Christian Rynning-Tønnesen: "We exist to lead the shift to a renewable world. We've been doing it from the start, and we're leading it today."
8. to 10. Reserved for international publishing.
Table of contents:
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
PART1.THEMISSION
PART2.THELONGLINES
PART3PLANA:THEGOODPATH BOOKWITHINTHEBOOK
PART 4. PLAN B: BY FORCE
PART 5. BACKGROUND FORPART3 ANDPART4
PARTG.CHALLENGES FORPART3ANDPART4
PART7.THENEXTSTEPPART 8. AFTERWORD
PART 5. APPENDIX
BACK PAGE
Foreword
"Our Lord gives us the nuts, but he has not cracked them for us."
H. C. Andersen. Danish author, d. 1875
"It was high time this book was published," wrote Kåre Valebrokk on the cover of my book "ABOUT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP, if the responsibility is yours." (Hegnar Media 2012). He knew the content well and provided valuable input during the work on the book.
It's also "high time" for a book that puts global warming and climate leadership up for debate, by asking the question: WHO CAN SOLVE THE CLIMATE CRISIS?
There are four social actors and their leadership that have an impact on whether the global temperature can be stabilised at +1.5 degrees Celsius, as envisaged by the 2015 Paris Agreement. These four are:
• The UN and the UN climate regime, personified by the Secretary-General.
• The parliaments of the nations, personified by heads of state.
• Enterprises, personified by enterprise managers.
• Most people, personified by our choices as consumers and as voters.
Leadership is about doing the important things "on time". "On time" is, logically,a point in time between "too early" and "too late"; two outcomes that deliver poorly, whatever the case may be.
Too early does not deliver, because too much is too unfinished
In 1550, research suggested rising world temperatures, and in 1552 a newspaperreported on "climate change". This term next appeared in November 1557 in The Hammond Times, which described Roger Revelle's research into the effects of increasing man-made CO2 emissions on the greenhouse effect: "a large-scale global warming, resulting in radical climate change". Both terms were used only sporadically until 1575, when Wallace Smith Broecker published a scientific article on the subject called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Distinct Global Warming?". The phrase then began to enter common usage, and in 157G, Soviet climate scientist Mikhail Budyko said that "a global warming has started", which was widely publicised. Other studies, such as a report from MIT in 1571, referred to human influence as "unintentional climatemodification", but an influential study from the National Academy of Sciences from 1575, led by Jule
Charney, followed Broecker in using global warming for rising surface temperatures, but described the wider effects of increased CO2 as climate change.
In 158G and November 1587, climate scientist James Hansen from NASA, gave testimony in the US Congress about global warming. There were increasing heat waves and drought problems in the summer of 1588, and when Hansen testified in a Senate hearing on 23 June, he sparkedworldwide interestin the topic. He said: "Global warming has reached a level such that we can attribute, with a high degree of confidence, a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."
Public attention increased during the summer, and global warming became the dominant popular term commonly used both by the media and in the public debate.
In a 2008 NASA terminology paper, Erik M. Conway defined global warming as "the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature dueto increasing levels of greenhouse gases", while climate change is "a long-term change in the Earth's climate, or in a region of the Earth." Because effects such as changing precipitation patterns and rising sea levels are likely to have more influence than temperature alone, he believed that global climate change was a more scientifically accurate term, and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA's website emphasises this broader context. Source: Wikipedia
Too late doesn't work, because the race is usually over
"We are exploring the risk that self-reinforcing climate change could drive Earth's systems towards a critical threshold for the planet, which, if passed, could prevent the stabilisation of global temperatures. This, in turn, could lead to uncontrolled increases on the road to "Hothouse Earth", even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to higher temperatures than in the interglacial period 1.2 million years ago (up to 4to Gdegrees Celsius),andsignificantlyhighersealevels (80to 100metres abovepresent)."
Source: "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Approved July G, 2018)
"This article gives cause for fear," says climate scientist Knut H. Alfsen at the Cicero research centre to VG on 7 August 2018.
On time is somewhere between too early and too late
"The world is in trouble, but it's not too late" say friends Damon and David on climateclock.net, which they have developed together. At the time of writing (January 2020), the "clock" says that the temperature increase is 1.075 degrees centigrade compared to pre-industrial times, and that +1.5 degrees will be passed in 15 years and 3 months, +2 degrees in 32 years and 11 months, assuming that no other measures are taken than what countries are currently planning.
Here's a little about the two friends I've gradually got to know:
Damon Matthews, PhD (b. 1584): "Professor and Concordia University Research Chair in Climate Science and Sustainability, Geography, Planning and Environment. His mission is to improve our understanding of the science of climate change, its impacts on human and environmental systems, and how we can best respond to the challenges of climate change mitigation.
David Usher (b. 15GG): Oxford-born Canadian musician with several chart-topping songs, multi-bestselling author, and widely used speaker. He established and is the creative director of the Human Impact Lab at Concordia University. "The Lab uses interactive storytelling to develop climate change as a digital issue.
Below is the "clock" as it appeared when it was copied by the author for the first time on 2 February 2018.
• On 31 January 2020, it shows +1.14 degrees, which means an increase in global temperature of 0.12 degrees compared to 2 February 2018.
• The time we have to deliver on +1.5 degrees has been reduced from 1G years and 2 months to 12 years and 5 months; reduced by 3 years and 5 months.
• This loss of time, around 3 1/2 years, has occurred in the course of barely 2 years.
Here and now it looks like this
It remains to be seen whether the measures to deliver down to +1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels (1870) will be implemented and become effective in time.
The figure below tells us something about the situation right now, in terms of what we, based on various assumptions, can see in the glass ball 80 years from now, towards 2100.
• If we continue with "business as usual", the temperature on the + 4.2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial times. In other words, terribly hot.
• If the effect of measures reported by nation states to the UN in accordance with the Paris Agreement is taken into account, it flattens out at +3.3 degrees. This is also far too hot
• According to the same agreement, the ambition is to reduce emissions to a level that leads to stabilisation down to +1.5 degrees, which is acceptable.
If +1.5 is added to a timeline towards 2100, the climate clock says that at the time of writing, 20 March 2020, we have 12 years and 8 months to deliver on our ambition.
The last two decades leading up to 2020 could be described as the largest "missed opportunities account" in world history.
Twenty years ago, we could have written that "The world is in trouble, but it's not too late." More appropriate today is to write ".... and we might be running out of time."
Intheyear2020,theworldisatthetippingpointbetween "in time" and "too late"; between a temperature that can be lived with, and that it can be too hot permanently! The fact that the figures are associated with large uncertainties is no consolation.
Introduction
There is a great risk that it could get far too hot with major consequences for far too many people. The high probability of a major global temperature increase, combined with the associated serious consequences for life on earth, justifies the term "a possible existential climate crisis". It is amplified because it is time-critical and must be nuanced due to computational uncertainties. This the book is intended as a contribution to a necessary debate on "climate and leadership in challenging times", in the hope that the debate can lead to a change in the way things are done. hot, with manageable consequences for the vast majority.
JørgenM.B.GreenMountain Strategic advisor and author
Author of "ABOUT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP, if the responsibility is yours." Hegnar Media 2012. Strategic advisor to Nordic leaders in energy, finance, ICT, maritime and governments over a number of years. Former owner and manager of a leading market research and management company in the Nordic region.
boken@gronneberg.no
"Full stop" was the very last word written in my book on strategic leadership; full stop in 2012, on a journey that started in 1570 with the establishment of a market research company, and which along the way has delivered around 1,000 consultant man-years related to strategic leadership, from companies with me as the main owner.
The promise to myself is broken when, after eight years of abstinence from the profession, "full stop" is replaced by "colon", which means "here it comes". I know it's going to hurt - for a long time - to write this book. One driving force is the expectation of experiencing the good feeling of performing to your own expectations, eureka! The other is the fear of not being enough. - I've experienced both often; the rush of happiness, as well as the despair.
While the book "ABOUT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP, IF THE RESPONSIBILITY IS YOURS" is about strategic leadership as a profession, this book is about the profession as a platform for dealing with the climate challenge.
As a strategic advisor to major financial, energy, maritime and ICT groups in the Nordic region for most of the trip and with engagements lasting several years, three services were provided:
• Models, i.e. tools for strategy evaluation, development and implementation.
• Facilitation, i.e. management of processes related to the use of the models.
• Content provider, i.e. participation in evaluation, development, selection, implementation and follow-up.
The models form the basis for the structure of the book and for the approach to the theme. By definition, being an author means both facilitating and being a content provider, but there is no client.
The purpose of thebook is, no moreand no less, to find and remove the plugs that prevent the implementation ofclimatemeasuresthatleadtothestabilisationofthe world'stemperaturedownto+1.5 degreesabovepreindustrial times. This requires carbon neutrality by 2050.
PART 1. THE MISSION
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
Marie Curie, researched radioactivity. Two Nobel Prizes. D. 1534
1.1. The client
1.2. Purpose of the assignment
1.3. About (in)safety
1.1. The client
There are a number of people who could be chosen as the client: the UN system represented by the Secretary General, a head of state, a business leader or a citizen. The UN system was not chosen, on the assumption that it would be a "client" in defence of the status quo, not a head of state, in order to avoid party affiliation, not a business leader who might place too much emphasis on selfinterest, or a citizen who could easily feel too powerless.
– I chose Greta Thunberg as a legitimate and visible global voice for her generation's concerns about what ongoing climate change might bring to their adult lives. She will be informed of this in the "first letter" reproduced below, dated 31 May 2019, while the "next letter" will be dated in exactly one year's time, with no idea of the content at this stage other than that the book has hopefully been published.
Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg (born 3 January 2003 in Stockholm) is a Swedish climate activist and former school student who came to prominence in August 2018, when she sat outside the Riksdag building in Stockholm with the poster "Skolstrejk för klimatet" ("School strike for the climate").
So far, she has three achievements to her name that will go down in the history books no matter what:
• In less than two years, from the age of 1G to 18, she moved her poster from a seat outside the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm, to the UN rostrum in New York. Few, if any, have achieved a similar feat when it comes to conquering the global public space with a humanist message.
• "Fridays for Future" is a youth movement that started in August 2018 with school strikes for climate, and is said to have encompassed 7,500 cities and at least 13 million people on all continents. It claims to have 20 million followers on social platforms.
• "GretaThunberg'sSpeech(1G)atTheUNClimateActionSummitSeptember 23. 2015" made her the most well-known and high-profile spokesperson on climate change in the world at the time - in fact, the only one! - She has been given access to lecterns at the world's climate conferences in Chile and Madrid, the Council of Europe and the World Economic Forum, and has held talks with several heads of state, including Donald Trump. * See p. 248 for an assessment of her claims
Jørgen
M.B.GreenMountain
Hvalstadåsen 88, 1355 Hvalstad, Norway
+47 500 50 477, jorgen@groneberg.no , f. 31.05.1544
31.05.2015
Dear Greta Thunberg
I often think of you, and know that we often think of the same thing: That the world is in trouble. Many young people think about it. Good adults too. We are equally concerned about the consequences of global climate change. You put me on track because you are quoted for the following: "When we start acting, hope is everywhere. So instead of looking for hope - look for action. Then hope will come." - I don't know if I can deliver a solution to you, but I will make an honest attempt.
The mission I'm taking on is to find out how the world's temperature can be stabilised at a level we can live with; to find and remove the plugs that prevent carbon neutrality by 2050. - You are defined as the client, I as the consultant and the book as the report.
I look forward to meeting you in a year's time so that I can give you the first copy of the book along with a new letter summarising what I found - I'm looking forward to it, but I have to be honest that I'm looking forward to the year ahead and all the work the book will entail.
Yours sincerely, Jørgen
M. B. Green Mountain
PS: My commitment in favour of the climate cause is only idealistically motivated.
It is inevitable that many people will talk her down, such as "climate deniers", rightwing populist forces and some technocrats and bureaucrats "who know better".
Three characteristics of her are often mentioned:
• Mentally deviant with reference to a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome and selective mutism. The first is a form of developmental disorder characterised by intense interestinaparticularsubject.Thesecondinvolvesnotwantingtospeak in certain contexts, often combined with involuntary anxiety problems and social anxiety.
– This makes her presentations easier to understand and all the more impressive, and is in no way devaluing.
• A tool for backers, with reference to the fact that she couldn't possibly have achieved so much, so well, so quickly. Sources say a lot about this, about a Swede who gave her the idea of a school strike and another whom she broke with, who wanted to exploit her commercially. It is certain that she has skilful collaborators. There is little to suggest that she is a manipulated girl who runs other people's errands.
– She certainly has a team around her that will continue to build her up, both as a global voice on climate change that is listened to, and as a charismatic leader of a global youth movement that will go far, sometimes too far, in its fight for climate change.
• Overplaying and double standards are also mentioned by many, referring, for example, to the fact that she sailed a "climate-friendly" sailboat from Europe to a climate summit in New York in 2015, which meant that the crew had to fly to New York to sail it back to Europe.
– The sailing trip became a global talking point. "All PR is good PR," as the saying goes. And few of us are exempt from criticism for double standards in the climate context.
Nettavisen and Cicero on the content of Greta Thunberg's speech at the UN on 23 September 2019:
• 2G.05.2015: "Nettavisen has asked senior researcher Maria Sand at CiceroCentre for Climate Research, to go through the claims point by point, to assess whether they are consistent with the research results in the climate reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
- There are nine claims that have been assessed. None have been refuted. "Yes, that's also correct" is a recurring character. The article from Nettavisen is reproduced in full in DEL 9. Attachments.
A little about possible ways forward for Greta Thunberg:
• The most important thing is that Greta Thunberg herself gets the protection, support and guidance she needs in her own life, so that she can make a harmonious transition from being a globally exposed young girl to becoming an adult woman.
• Many people remember that it was a young girl who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her fight for girls' right to education and to improve women's rights; perhaps also that she was shot by the Taliban. Few remember that her name is Malala Yousafzai and that she was awarded the prize in 2014, at the age of 17, as the youngest recipient of a Nobel Prize ever.
- The "Fridays For Future" youth movement is likely to endure and grow stronger, almost regardless of what happens with Greta Thunberg and what is communicated about global climate change.
• When "the whole world" knows that it can get too hot and that too hot is bad for everyone, there won't be many people who care about actors who just keep repeating this.
- By shifting the focus from crisis maximisation to constructive solutions, Fridays for Future with Greta Thunberg can become a global voice and a power factor that helps to keep things from getting too hot.
Whatever the youth movement "Fridays for Future" and Greta Thunberg prioritise in the years to come, what she has already delivered in terms of creating global awareness of the extent and consequences of climate change is of historic proportions. This is food for thought for climate researchers and environmental protection organisations that have spent a lot to achieve little in such a context.
1.2. Purpose of the assignment
Anecdote of unknown origin:
Person on pier to person in boat pouring out water: "Why don't you put in the bung plug? A person in a boat who is pouring sweat replies: "I don't have time. I have to scoop!"
With Greta Thunberg and her generation as the chosen client, the mission statement is a concretisation of the book's purpose.
The assignment involves going the necessary step further, in relation to the title of one of the chapters in "Climate risk and the Norwegian economy" (NOU 2018): "From risk analysis to risk management". From analysis, of which there is now more than enough, to management, of which there is far too little. - So short, so right and so important!
Unfortunately, far too many people are still in analysis and investigation mode when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions with associated global warming and global consequences. This applies to academia, climate authorities, environmental organisations, major industry players, national and international industry organisations and, not least, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). And all with the media as a willing, often uncritical microphone stand.
The purpose of the book is not to create new knowledge about climate change, its causes and consequences, but to retrieve relevant knowledge and use it as a starting point to try to find the best WAY FORWARD (PART 3) to carbon neutrality in 2050, i.e. the way forward to a temperature we can live with. And it's urgent!
The book only indirectly touches on the climate challenge in Norway and only when universal conditions dictate it, which is often the case.
It is possible that in retrospect it will be argued that the book's most important contribution to tackling the climate challenge is not its content, but the debate that followed about the (lack of) global and national climate leadership. Relevant questions are, as we know, necessary to get useful answers.
The work process is illustrated below, from a starting point that it can get too hot, via mapping the premises, describing the "terrain", into a transformation process that transforms wisdom into targeted measures, providing a temperature that is "decent enough" and with feedback that leads to continuous improvements.
Mission: to find and remove plugs that prevent the implementation of measures that lead to carbon neutrality in 2050, thereby stabilising the world's temperature down to +1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Without such a debate, the solutions will not arrive in time!
1.3. About (in)security
"TRUST THE WAIT, Embrace
the uncertainty. Enjoy the beauty of becoming. When nothing is certain, anything is possible."
Mandy Hale, bestselling author in the USA, born 1578.
1.3.1. "Climate"
1.3.2. The climate models
1.3.3. The experience of uncertainty
1.3.1. "Climate"
With "climate" and "climate change" so high on the list of potentially life-threatening issues, it's important to be clear about what the terms mean.
"Climate is the typical weather pattern at a location, based on weather statistics, usually over a 30-year interval. It is measured by evaluating patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, air pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particulate matter and other meteorological variables in a given area over a long period of time. Climate is different from weather in that weather only describes short-term conditions for these variables in a given region. The complex mathematical models used to describe climate and climate change take into account both natural and anthropogenic influences, including greenhouse gases and land use change." Source: Wikipedia
In everyday speech, "climate" is often linked to "environment" and the terms are often used interchangeably, in a way that creates ambiguity on a topic where clarity is important.
"Environment" means surroundings or external living conditions. For example, you can have a good or bad working environment where you work.
If you ask whether differences in a person's height are due to heredity or environment, you mean whether the cause lies in the genes each person is born with, or in their living conditions, such as their diet growing up.
In biology, environment refers to the external living conditions for an organism, a population or a society, and the influences to which they are exposed. This includes, for example, temperature, humidity and access to nutrients.
Ecology is a branch of biology that specialises in the relationship between organisms and their environment. In the social sciences and psychology, the environment is the surroundings people live in and are characterised by. It is as much about culture, economics and relationships with other people as it is about physical surroundings.
"The word environment is used in many contexts, such as working environment, growing environment, learning environment and so on. It is also used in a more figurative sense, so that a "research environment" can refer to a research institute and the researchers who work there." Source: Store norske leksikon.
Defined in this way, "environment" refers to "external living conditions" as a whole, with "climate" included as a subset.
"Climate change" is in the process of significantly weakening these living conditions. If the changes stabilise at an acceptable level, the biological living conditionswillstillbealtered,butnotinathreatening way for the vast majority of us.
Later in the book, it will be pointed out that environmental movements working for an ecological world order, to restore biological living conditions, are part of the climate problem, not part of the solution. Those who want a lot usually achieve very little. Stabilising the world's temperature down to +1.5 degrees is demanding enough!
1.3.2. The climate models
What can be delivered with certainty to Greta Thunberg about global warming is the certainty of uncertainty. There is very little in our lives between birth and death that is "absolutely certain", especially when it comes to future prospects. The choices in the book, for stabilisation down to +1.5 degrees, are based on data with associated uncertainties we can live with, provided we understand and acknowledge them. Little has been researched and written about as much as expected climate change and its causes and consequences.
The degree figures referred to on p. 5, +4.3 degrees if we continue as we are now and
+3.2 degrees based on what countries intend to do is marked with possible deviations up and down, i.e. uncertainties. The figure on the next page illustrates this more clearly.
If this figure is read based on the "best case" and "worst case" scenarios, assuming that nation states deliver what they promise ("Pledges & Targets") in terms of emission reductions, the world could be heading towards +2.5 degrees in 2100. Still too hot, but with a short path to delivering down to +1.5 degrees, even if the most "low-hanging fruit has already beenharvested". Attheotherendofthescaleis "hHothouseeEarth",whichdescribes what the world is headed for if we "continue as before"; in the worst case +4.8 degrees. The difference is as much as +2.3 degrees, partly explained by the fact that the time of measurement is more than 80 years ahead of the starting point.
The latest update on temperature change projections is reported in The Guardian on 22 July 2020 as follows:
"Optimistscouldpointtothelower numbertosaythatnoactionwas necessary.Pessimists might point to the higher figure to warn that the apocalypse was near."
The study, published in Reviews of Geophysics, shrinks a GG% likely range of climate sensitivity to between 2.G C and 3.5 degrees, or slightly wider, if several
uncertainties are included. This is still dangerously high, meaning there is no room for complacency, but the most dire predictions are now considered less likely.
"This is moderately good news. It reduces the likelihood of some of the catastrophically high estimates. If we planned for the worst, the worst has become less likely," said one of the authors, Zeke Hausfather, of the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California Berkeley. "But the bottom line is that we need to do more to limit climate change. We're not close to doing that."
Climate sensitivity measures the sensitivity of the Earth's climate to human influence. It has been considered the holy grail of climate science since the first 1.5 C to 4.5 degrees C estimate in 1575.Numerous reports have been published on thesubject, butthat range has barely changed until now.
Two factors are particularly important for understanding the limitations of the climate model and thus the fundamental uncertainties associated with the calculations provided:
About conditions that are included: In order to be able to quantify a process into the future, it is necessary to have an identical, quantifiable process in the past. Few factors are included in the models because there are few factors that can be described with representative historical data. This is statistically manageable, but does not change the fact that an inadequate description of the past also results in inadequate statements about the future, regardless of the theme.
About conditions that are not included: It goes without saying that conditions that did not have any kind of historical presence cannot be included in the quantification of future timelines. - If history is used as a basis, it was the unexpected that gave the timelines a completely different relationship to the calculated ones. The models cannot capture what the scientific theorist Thomas Kuhn, in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (15G2), called paradigm shifts; something completely new that is of considerable size and scope. Most people with an insight into the subject will consider it highly likely that something of great significance for climate change will happen between now and 2050 that the climate models do not capture today - the impact of the sum of paradigm shifts seen towards 2100 may prove to have greater consequences for the calculations of temperature changes than the impact of the factors that weigh most heavily in today's model calculations, whether in a positive or negative direction!
These two conditions receive little or no attention in the media, so what is communicated easily takes on an absolute character and can be perceived as doomsday prophecies,
But at the same time, it must be said that finding the right balance between communicating the seriousness of the climate issue and the nuance of the seriousness is a demanding challenge
The intervals for temperature changes calculated by theclimatemodelsincreaseover time, butstillprovide a good picture of what we can expect. The range between the best and worst possible outcomes is large, +2.5 degreesand4.8degreesrespectively,butit still does not capture the positive or negative consequences of one or more paradigm shifts. - The further out in time you go, the higher the probability that such events will take place.
All decisions made by leaders in society and business and by most people, including in the climate context, are based on a given knowledge base, and it should be generally accepted that strengthening the knowledge base reduces the likelihood of making the wrong decisions.
Risk analyses, sensitivity analyses and impact assessments belong in this part of the toolbox to help us make the best possible decisions; just to help us, because all decisions are intuitive by nature
Extensive climate knowledge means that decisions about the way forward can be made with the least possible degree of uncertainty, while at the same time making it likely that decisions must be made in time. Often wrong. Opportunities to make corrections along the way must also be in place, a "Plan B".
At the same time, there is a great risk that the extensive climate knowledge will result in a degree of paralysis, due to the combination of complexity and severity; in this case very serious, when the knowledge base indicates that a global "status quo" in terms of greenhouse gas emissions will have devastating consequences.
And when all is considered and discussed, there is much wisdom to be gleaned from the fact that "there is a time for doubt until there is a time for faith, wheredoubtisputtorest."-Weshouldknowenough to make the right decisions in time to ensure carbon neutrality by 2050 and to understand that a global "The status quo, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, is not a viable option. - It's all about the will and the ability.
1.3.3. The experience of uncertainty
Some are afraid most of the time, others are completely fearless and many are completely disinterested. None of these attitudes are particularly solutionorientated.
"The Art of Tolerating Uncertainty" appeared in the Mental Health magazine, in an article written by Bente Thoresen in 2017. She writes: "Anxiety is a driving force, but if the warning lights are always on, life becomes unmanageable." This is from a Swedish book "Oro, Att leva med tillvarons ovisshet" by Anna Kåver, which also discusses why anxiety sometimes becomes too great. The quote at the beginning of this chapter from Mandy Hale that "anything is possible" expresses one attitude. Marie Curie's words point in the same direction: "Now is the time to understand more!"
"Several climate scientists admit that working on such a serious topic is detrimental totheir health and often falls on deaf ears," reports Harald Fjelddalen in Nettavisen on 14 July 2015.
Greta Thunberg and various editions of "Fridays for Future" are the tip of the icebergwhen it comes to deep anxiety among millions of young and old. Research reports mention climate depression. - "Climate change is threatening mental health" writes the American Psychological Association (07.08.201G) and refers to a report published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
A few decades ago, a market research institute owned by the author carried out effect measurements of various theme years and campaigns under the auspices of the Norwegian Directorate of Health, such as dental health, mental health, breast cancer, the environment and others. This yielded the following knowledge, among other things: Good results are achieved when fear is created in most people, coupled with their own actions that can reassure. Example: Tooth decay is prevented by the use of fluoride. After a "Year of the Environment" with no associated advice on actions that could calm people down, public concern increased significantly.
With a world population of 7.8 billion, it's important to communicate knowledge about the climate challenge, about what is being done and what can be done. Simply scaring people causes mental health problems for many and will create social unrest.
The basic fact is that the climate challenge cannot be solved unless most people have a knowledge of and attitude to the challenge that government and business leaders must deliver on in order to remain in their positions of power.
PART2:THELONGLINES
"It will happen as much in my life as in all of human history up to my birth."
Future Shock" from 1570 by
Alvin Toffier, b. 1528
2.1. Greenhouse gas emissions and temperature
2.2. The eras
2.3. Sustainability
2.4. "The Gap"
2.5. Source, use and end use
2.G. The worst offenders
2.7. Everything has its price
2.8. Stakeholders and self-interest
2.5. Globalisation: climate and corona
2.10. This is how bad it can get
2.1. Greenhouse gas emissions and temperature
There's nothing special about greenhouse gases, other than the fact that there's too much of them, like many other things we'd like to have less of. What makes these gases special are the existential consequences if there is too much.
Important questions have always been disputed in every age. Copernicus (14731543), a highly educated Polish cleric and astronomer, proposed that it was the Earth that revolved around the sun and rotated on its own axis. This broke with the older worldview that the earth is the centre of the universe. It is written "that he was surely aware of the fierce attacks that he would face, especially from the Catholic Church."
"Fake news" is not a new phenomenon. A closer look reveals that no one has ever claimed that the earth is flat, but it was a perception that gained validity through incorrect historiography in the 19th century. Despite this, the International Flat Earth Research Society of America is alive and well, with 3,500 members. Donald Trump has not yet been made an honorary member.
Many people ask: Hasn't the climate always changed? And the answer to that is: Yes, the climate has always changed and for natural reasons. The image below shows the amount of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere from 400,000 years ago and the fluctuations are significant. But the image also shows that something very special must have suddenly happened in the last 150 years. The increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is dramatically steeper in these years than at any other time in Earth's history, and is still rising.
Source: NASA
What happened? The industrial revolution gained particular momentum with the invention of the steam engine. Later also with electricity, increasingly automated machines and the internal combustion engine. Labour was supplemented with coal and oil as input factors to create economic growth and prosperity. The term "changes in world temperature relative to pre-industrial levels" refers to changes relative to 1870.
And it is questioned whether there is any connection between the increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increase in global temperature. The image below demonstrates the link between temperature changes and carbon dioxide iAtmosphere.
Source: Microsoft
The image below also links the relationship between energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth (GDP).
It is worth noting the dip in 2008 in terms of economic growth (GDP), with a corresponding dip in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the temperature increase was still +0.02 degrees compared to the previous year. Corresponding figures for the corona years 2020 to 2022 will show a greater dip, but the temperature increase will still rise.
The evidence that climate change is man-made has passed a so-called sigma 5 level, which is a statistical gold standard and indicates that there is only one chance in 3.5 million that climate change is not man-made. The global warming of the atmosphere in recent times is a fact, and it is a fact that this is due to large emissions of climatedamaging gases that we ourselves are the cause of, and which can have existential consequences.
FINISHTALKING!
2.2. The eras
The "S-curve" can be used to describe the development of a given performance over a defined period of time, be it for a product, a technology, an industry or a culture, to name a few. The term was introduced by scientific theorist Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in 15G2. Performance can also be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The S-curve illustrates growth in an early phase, because the driving forces are much stronger than the opposing forces. The relative strength ratio changes over time, and the S-curve flattens out when the driving and opposing forces are equally strong. When the opposing forces take control, performance drops more or less steeply towards zero and a cycle is over.
The drivers of the performance S-curve can be seen as the sum of everyone's efforts for a better everyday life. But most driving forces also have an inherent ability to produce counter-forces. The global striving for a better everyday life as a driving force has resulted in climate change becoming a counterforce. The balance point of the S-curve in this context illustrates the political mantra of "growth and protection", where the desire for growth is the driving force, with protection as a counterforce.
When the sum of forces over generations becomes strong enough, obstacles are broken down. The framework conditions change. Disruptive innovations and paradigm shifts are part of this. The room for manoeuvre for a better day tomorrow is increasing for more and more people. The changes take on the character of being epoch-making.
The illustration, which lies heavily on the time axis, divides human history into three climate epochs, three S-curves, which when viewed in context cover the time from creation and perhaps 100 years into the future.
• The primitive green era covers the time from humanity's year 0 to 1830 AD, which can be considered the beginning of the industrial revolution. Scientists set "year 0" 150,000 years back in time, when the living species of the genus Homo is said to have emerged.
• The civilised, climate-damaging era from 1830 to 2035 (according to climateclock.net) follows, covering around 0.14% of human history.
• The civilised, green era from 2035 to eternity should be the next era, given the right handling of the climate challenge over the next 20-30 years.
The alternative to success, i.e. failure, could make 2035 the beginning of the "perpetual decivilised warm era".
The following comment is made on this approach to the climate challenge:
"The attached presentation looks interesting! I don't see any problems from my point of view in terms of science content."
Damon Matthews, PhD Professor and Concordia Research Chair in Climate
The logic of the S-curve represents an important approach to dealing with the climate challenge and for our ability to understand the connections between what creates and what prevents the necessary dynamics, as the curve illustrates.
Example: Policies that seek to steer capital use according to ecological or planning economy criteria are "counterforces" for achieving carbon neutrality. Ideologies that want to make investment that contributes to carbon neutrality competitive on the terms of capital are "driving forces" that raise the performance curve. This is very important because there is a lot to invest to achieve carbon neutrality, a lot. It's naive to think that this can be financed through taxes and charges. The balance of power between these forces will be decisive for what the coming era will have to offer for the world's population.
Based on the logic of the S-curve and the three climate epochs, the climate challenge can best be illustrated as follows (discussed in section G.1.):
The challenge is to implement a climate strategy that delivers on the red S-curve.
Our familiar time horizons are well suited to the hereand-now nature of the corona pandemic. As far as the climate challenge is concerned,the climate impact of decisions on emission reductions that need to be made soon will be 15 to 30 years in the future; time horizons that very few are able to act on. Government leaders, business leaders or most people do not have "eras" as a dimension for their priorities; let alone that we may be at the tipping point between "a civilised green era" or "a civilised warm era".
- Creating an understanding that climate change is a "here and now" challenge in line with the corona pandemic is a necessary condition for carbon neutrality by 2050.
2.3. Sustainability
"Sustainable" means good for the climate, good for capital and good for most people; equally, simultaneously and all the time. (Adapted from the Brundtland Commission)
The term "sustainable" became widely known after the Brundtland Commission in 1587 and can be illustrated as follows:
It is not sustainable if one dimension is prioritised over others. It is not sustainable if one dimension is prioritised first and the others later. It is only sustainable if all three are delivered all the time. This ensures sustainability, fairness and viability.
The three pillars of sustainability can be elaborated as follows:
• "Good for climate" is only an overarching goal for the UN's climate regime expressed as stabilisation of the global temperature below +2 degrees, and is based on the Climate Convention of 1552.
• "Good for capital" is only a goal for business, often expressed as a return on capital employed.
• "Good for most people" means that each and every one of us prioritises what creates the best everyday life, for ourselves and our loved ones.
Delivering on "good for climate" alone is not enough, because:
• asset owners and managers cannot and will not invest green if green does not pay off while
• most people won't choose green, unless green provides a better everyday life.
Climate policy globally, nationally and locally must adapt to the fact that neither capital markets nor the general public will voluntarily prioritise green if it does not pay off.
Climate policy globally, nationally and locally must adapt to the fact that neither companies nor the general public will favour climate-friendly solutions unless it serves short-term self-interest. Politics must adapt to this. It would be almost unnatural, and irresponsible, for companies to stop thinking about short-term profitability and for people to stop thinking about short-term self-interest.
2.4. "The Gap"
Climate scientists have calculated how much greenhouse gas, CO2e, can be emitted if the climate goals are to be achieved, called the "climate budget". The letter "e" stands for equivalents and means that the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) has been adjusted for emissions of other gases that also contribute to warming. This is the basis for putting a price on the emissions.
Models calculate the effect of planned measures in terms of emission reductions measured against the carbon budget, and "The Gap" quantifies the difference between what is expected and what the atmosphere can withstand if the world temperature is to be stabilised at a livable level.
The challenge is to stabilise the world's temperature at a given level, illustrated in the figure as +2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (1870).
Based on the countries' non-binding pledges, the worldisheadingforatemperatureincreaseof3.2°C, which means it will be far too hot for most people.
• The technologies and knowledge of what is needed to cut emissions are in place to deliver towards +1.5°C, but the changes need to start now.
• The G20 countries account for 78 per cent of all emissions, but as of 2015, 15 G20 members have not committed to a timeline that delivers net zero emissions. IPPC, Emission Gap Report 2015
2.5. Sources, use and consumption
Greenhouse gas emissions originate from some primary energy sources, such as coal, oil and gas, with an inherent and unrealised greenhouse gas component. The next link in the food chains, the buyer or user of the primary source, releases this component in connection with its production of goods and services and with organisations and individuals as buyers and consumers in the last link.
This is taken from the International Energy Agency. The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the burning of fossil fuels. This accounts for 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy, which is most often converted into heat, electricity or power for transport. Some examples of where they are used are in power stations, cars, aeroplanes and industrial plants. The three types of fossil fuels used most are coal, natural gas and oil. Coal is responsible for 43 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion, 3 per cent is produced by oil and 20 per cent by natural gas.
1. Land use change is a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions globally, accounting for 5% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Land use change is when the natural environment is converted into areas for human use, such as farmland or settlements.
2. There are many industrialprocesses thatproducesignificant amountsof carbon dioxide emissions, as a by-product of chemical reactions needed in the manufacturing process. There are four main types of industrial process that are a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions: the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the production of chemicals and petrochemical products.
The use of climate-damaging energy sources accounts for 87% of greenhouse gas emissions (see figure above). In the next link in the food chains (figure below) where greenhouse gases are released, the production of electricity and heat dominates (41% of emissions). Transport (22%) and industry (20%) take significant shares while households also take their share (G%).
All vital sectors of society are dependent on energy to supply the consumer society. - The primary sources of climate change are few and easy to identify. Fossil sources are dominant (87%). The use of energy by societal sectors, i.e. the producers of climate gases, is also relativelyfew and easy to identify. Ceasingtouse energy does not appear to be an option. Therefore, switching to renewable primary sources of energy is crucial to achieving carbon neutrality.
The worst offenders, or climate superpowers, defined as the countries responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions, are easy to identify and qualify.
When six states/regions account for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the other 187 states share the remaining30%amongthemselves,common sense dictates that the six should agree among themselves on how to achieve carbon neutralisation by 2050, after consultations with the others. This is supported by the fact that the six have 50% of the world's population.
But perhaps not so strange: In its 1.5-degree report from October 2018, the IPCC writes about the consequences of global warming for the US. About this, Donald Trump says: "I don't believe it" and "We're the cleanest we've ever been".
2.7. Everything has its price
Everything we surround ourselves with at all times has been bought from someone who hasn't paid for, or hasn't taken responsibility for, the damage, and hence the costs, caused by climate gas emissions. That also applies to this book. Admittedly, books and newspapers rank at the bottom of the list of climate villains. But nonetheless, this book carries an emission cost that has not been paid for.
When we occasionally eat out, we take for granted that the cost of washing dishes and dealing with restaurant waste is included in the bill, but the costs associated with
The "emission waste" through the food chains until the plate is on the table is not included in the bill. The arrears must be settled, and that will cost us dearly.
This is the theory for the 87% of emissions that have fossil energy as their primary source:
"Ifweareto overcometheworld'sclimate challenges,we need alarge-scaletransition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. However, many forms of renewable energy have high costs, and for these projects to be profitable, we need a carbon price that reflects the actual cost to society of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The development of market solutions for pricing CO2 is therefore crucial to solving the world's climate problems."
Source: Statkraft
The theory is flawed. - The reference to what it costs to develop climate-friendly power generation in relation to climate-damaging power generation is not essential. The key point is that the sum of the costs in the food chains with which greenhouse gas emissions are associated is included in the calculatory basis for unit pricing from all energy sources. This means that all energy, whether climate-damaging or climatefriendly, must bear its associated emission costs, so that this is reflected in all supply chains and thus included in the end user price. With the current pricing system, the owners of fossil energy sources pass on climate costs that should have been handled commercially to the national economy. Renewable energy does the same, but the emissions are significantlylowerandthe price differencesbetween climate-damaging and climate-friendly energy are therefore considerable - Buyers at all levels of the food chains will, all other things being equal, choose the cheapest alternative. If climate costs are shifted from social to corporate accounts, sustainable products and services will outperform the alternatives.
Given the same calculation principles for charging all emission costs directly to the primary energy sources, climate-damaging products and services will be outcompeted on price by climate-friendly ones. The price effect will be felt throughout all stages of the commercial chains from primary source to end user, and will result in investments in the energy sector being shifted from fossil fuels to renewables. The same approach can be applied to other primary sources of emissions, with associated food chains, such as food production.
In the real world of energy, it looks like this:
57 carbon pricing initiatives are implemented or planned for implementation globally, up from 51 in April 2018, according to the World Bank's annual "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing Report" (7 June 2015)
Both the amount of emissions covered by carbon pricing and the level of pricing are still too low to fulfil the goals of the Paris Agreement. Only 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are covered by regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and of these, less than 5 per cent are priced at a level consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Carbon pricing initiatives are negotiated between responsible governments and businesses, where the outcome is a consequence of trade-offs between a number of considerations, and do a poor job of "reflecting the cost of CO2 emissions to society". The systems and processes are of a planned economy nature.
A planned economy is an economic system in which the government determines what should be produced and how it should be distributed. The government sets production targets and allocates quotas.
A planned economy has proved to be an effective economic tool in times of severe crisis characterised by a shortage of goods, such as during the world wars. By subjecting the economy to detailed political control, almost all economic
activities are channelled into the war effort. This is why planned economy policies were used by all warring sides during World War II, including countries with market economies in peacetime. The USA, with the world's freest market economy, quickly switched to a planned economy to produce war materials. And then quickly reverted, with Marshall Aid as one of the instruments, to boost a demand-driven world economy.
A market economy, the opposite of a planned economy, allows markets and free competition to determine prices and distribution, with supply and demand as the market forces; often linked to liberalism's protection of individual rights and the right to free choice.
In practice, all countries pursue a mixture of the two economic models, usually with an emphasis on one of the two, i.e. a "mixed economy". It's easy to understand why many people who are worried about the consequences of global warming see more of a planned economy and less of a market economy as the way to get things under control.
Opponents argue that a planned economy is a highly inefficient economic system and has proven to work poorly in practice. Furthermore, planned economies are criticised for requiring a large bureaucracy to make and implement decisions that would be made by citizens themselves in a market economy.
The planned economy approach that characterises the known carbon pricing systems will not result in a phase-in of renewable energy on a scale that ensures carbon neutrality.
(1) Because pricing is the result of negotiations, a wide range of considerations other than climate-related ones will push prices down to a level that has limited impact. (2) This is only one of several economic factors that affect the competitiveness of products and services. If one of the factors changes in an unfavourable direction, this can be offset by changes in the others.
(3) Today's carbon pricing systems are aimed at the industrial sector and do little to distort competition between players in the same sector.
2.8. Stakeholders and self-interest
It is generally accepted that everyone at all times, and at the end of the day, puts self-interest first and prioritises accordingly. In the book, it is assumed that there are four primary social actors (i.e. decision-makers) who, each in their own way, can make and implement decisions that can contribute to carbon neutrality.
• The UN climate regime encompasses the apparatus the UN has developed to be able to deliver on the Climate Convention of 1552, with the climate conferences / "COP" and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change / "IPPC" as the most visible actors (see PART 5. Organisation of the UN climate regime). The self-interest lies in delivering on the convention's objective: a sustainable world with a temperature increase stabilised at +1.5 degrees.
The perspective is very long-term, 20-30 years.
• Nation states include heads of state, governments, parliaments and parties that are supported by national and international governments for various purposes
"for the good of all". In any case, self-interest is about strengthening one's own position of power by delivering the best possible fulfilment of citizens' expectations of an improved standard of living.
The perspective ranges from short to medium term. For heads of state in democracies, the time horizon is until the next election, and in dictatorships it is as long as possible.
• "Enterprise" includes owners and managers of commercial private and public organisations. The self-interest of managers is about securing their own position by delivering on expectations in terms of financial results.
• "Most people" encompasses individuals both in the role of giving mandates to politicians and parties, and as buyers and/or users of products and services from private and public suppliers. Self-benefit lies in creating a better everyday life for themselves and their neighbours tomorrow than today;everyday improvements (Ref. Part 5. Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
The players influence each other all the time, and each player prefers the other three to function in a way that serves its own particular interests. Conflicts arise when there are conflicting interests in important areas.
It would be unnatural for "nation states", "companies" and "most people" to simultaneously and constantly prioritise one common cause, such as climate change, if this is contrary to what the actors see as beneficial.
The global temperature can therefore only be stabilised towards +1.5 degrees if government leaders, business leaders and most people see it as crucial to safeguard their own special interests; that it serves their own benefit.
