Climate myths that MUST go - Part III
This post is Part III of the series "Climate myths that MUST go". I urge the readers to read the previous posts first, to be able to make sense of this one.
← Myth #2: Climate models are faulty because they are inequitable
Myth #3: Climate system metrics = Socio-economic metrics
I will admit, this one is trickier to summarize in one neat title line. So if anyone has a suggestion for the line above, they're certainly welcome. But first, let me try to explain what I mean by this strange line.
I assume that the reader understands these two facts:
(i) Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas. Country of emissions do not matter to the climate system.
(ii) Carbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere. After emission, it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time (decades-centuries).
These two facts are incontrovertible and unchangeable, discovered by observations of nature. There is no point in "having an issue" or "not agreeing" with these. No human being invented these properties, and no human being can change them. It is something we have to accept with the same humility as gravity or inevitable death of living organisms.
It is vital to recognize which man-made metrics matter to the climate system, and which don't. To differentiate between these two, I use the term "climate system metrics" (those which matter to the climate system -- are relevant to the physical science aspect) and put everything else in the category of "other climate metrics" or "socio-economic metrics". My point here is not that socio-economic metrics are worthless. My point here is that conclusions derived from socio-economic metrics cannot trump conclusions derived from climate system metrics.
Let me give some examples of this categorization.
(a) Atmospheric concentration of GHGs: This is a climate system metric. The climate system responds to this number.
(b) Global annual GHG emissions: This is also a climate system metric. The climate system responds to increases or decreases to this number.
(c) National annual GHG emissions: This is not a climate system metric. The climate system does not care if emissions are occurring in US, India, China or any country in the world. Please read this slowly: the climate crisis will continue to march on, i. e. continue to get worse, as global emissions rise, irrespective of which country is to blame. It does not matter to the climate system if all increases/reductions happen in developed/developing countries. The only thing that matters to the climate system is the GHG concentration, which depends on global emissions.
(d) Per capita GHG emissions: Absolutely irrelevant to the climate system. Doesn't matter if the same amount of emissions are due to the 1, 10 or 100 billion people (globally, or in any country).
(e) Global cumulative (historical) GHG emissions: This is a climate system metric. The atmospheric concentration of GHGs depends not only on annual emissions (how much was emitted this year) but how much has already been emitted.
(f) National cumulative (historical) GHG emissions: This is not a climate system metric. Man-made national boundaries do not matter to the climate system.
As a general thumb rule, anything that seems to fall in the category of "panchhi, nadiyan, pawan ke jhokhe" does not matter to the climate system. It matters to us humans only. But isn't this whole hullabaloo about humans anyway? After all, we don't (and needn't) care about what happens to the planet. We care about what happens to us on this planet. So what's the point of this categorization of metrics?
The distinction between these metrics becomes important when climate system metrics are ignored to focus on socio-economic metrics. When conclusions drawn from socio-economic metrics are thought of as more important than conclusions drawn from climate system metrics. Nothing could be farther from reality. It is worth remembering that all discussions regarding climate justice, equity, economics, finance, negotiations, vulnerability and even adaptation are based on the foundation of climate system metrics and climate system observations (whatever can be lumped into "climate science" or "physical science" part of the discussion). Perhaps this is not emphasized often enough by climate scientists, for risk of being misconstrued as hubris. It's time that climate scientists let go of this fear and start reminding society about these hard facts.
The climate crisis will continue to get worse as global emissions rise. Whatever impacts are already being observed in India -- heatwaves, precipitation anomalies (monsoon, pre-monsoon, post-monsoon, non-monsoon), extreme weather events etc -- will continue to get worse. What we will face and suffer depends only on GHG concentrations. It is absolutely independent of whether such-and-such levels of GHG concentrations are reached via the path of climate justice or not.
That is the inherent injustice in the climate system.
All of this is not to say that injustices in man-made systems don't deserve attention. They are of paramount importance in international negotiations. But they must not occupy all the space in the climate discourse within the country. It is important to remember that climate inaction will also worsen inequalities, there is also injustice in not mitigating. While we do the math on which injustice is worse, it is helpful to focus on adaptation with unrelenting, war-like efforts. That is something that will benefit Indian citizens and only Indian citizens (i.e. there is no angle of international coordination or responsibility).
===
If you like such posts, you can subscribe here.
Comments
Post a Comment