The climate policy gamble
Progress tackling climate change is recklessly slow, warned economist Lord Stern in a report yesterday, as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. It’s the latest in a string of warnings that current efforts to address climate change aren’t on track to keep warming at a manageable level. So what’s holding everyone back? We take a look at why taking action to tackle climate change isn’t always straightforward.
Uncertainties surrounding climate risks
Media reports of climate talks often reflect frustration at government’s seeming inability to agree on climate action. But as the new report from economists at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change acknowledges, there are a number of uncertainties which can hold back action on climate change, even though our understanding of them has improved over the past decade.
Some of those uncertainties surround the climate risks themselves. It’s hard for climate models to predict exactly how much temperature, precipitation and sea levels will change in the future. That’s why climate projections, like those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are given in terms of probabilities.
There are other uncertainties in relation to the economics of tackling climate change. It’s difficult work out what the technology needed to address climate change will cost now and in the future, and what sort of policies are needed to create and develop new technologies. It’s also difficult to value an asset like a town or an ecosystem – and this affects how much governments think it’s worth spending to protect it.
The report concludes there is still more to learn about these uncertainties, but current understanding is enough to know “how to begin, what we need to do to start along the path, and how, in large measure, to do it”.
Different approaches to climate risks
There isn’t just one approach to tackling climate risks either, which complicates things further. Decision makers must weigh the risks against the cost of action to decide which approach to take, as a recent commentary article in the journal Nature explains.
Sometimes it’s necessary to take action at any cost, until the climate risk is considered tolerable. The Thames Barrier, which protects London from flooding, is a good example of this. By law, the barrier must be sufficient to protect London against a one in 1000 year flood event.
At other times, decision-makers may judge that adaptation is only worthwhile where the financial benefits of taking action outweigh the costs. For example, it may be worth spending a small amount replenishing sand on a beach to protect against rising sea levels. But as research suggests is the case in East Anglia, it’s sometimes more cost-effective (and generally more effective) to allow nearby cliffs to erode and naturally replenish the shoreline, even if it means abandoning clifftop communities.
Either approach is subject to uncertainties about climate risks and economics, but the authors of the Nature article warn uncertainty shouldn’t be an “obstacle to action”.
Do we know enough to take action?
Making decisions about tackling climate change is tough – there are different approaches and considerable uncertainties which mean it’s not always straightforward to take action. People also disagree about whose responsibility it is to tackle climate change, who should foot the bill, and how that will impact on countries desperate to develop and grow. But Stern and the authors of the Nature study conclude these difficulties are no reason for inaction.