UN AP: UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left ‘to save the world’

UN climate chief presses for faster action, says humans have 2 years left ‘to save the world’
Associated Press (archive.ph)
By Seth Borenstein and Jamey Keaten
2024-04-10 16:24:23GMT

OXFORD, England (AP) — Humanity has only two years left “to save the world” by making dramatic changes in the way it spews heat-trapping emissions and it has even less time to act to get the finances behind such a massive shift, the head of the United Nations climate agency said.

With governments of the world facing a 2025 deadline for new and stronger plans to curb carbon pollution, nearly half of the world’s populations voting in elections this year, and crucial global finance meetings later this month in Washington, United Nations executive climate secretary Simon Stiell said Wednesday he knows his warning may sound melodramatic. But he said action over the next two years is “essential.”

“We still have a chance to make greenhouse gas emissions tumble, with a new generation of national climate plans. But we need these stronger plans, now,” Stiell said in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London. He suggested that climate action is not just for powerful people to address — in a not-so-veiled reference to the electoral calendar this year.

“Who exactly has two years to save the world? The answer is every person on this planet,” Stiell said. “More and more people want climate action right across societies and political spectrums, in large part because they are feeling the impacts of the climate crisis in their everyday lives and their household budgets.”

Crop-destroying droughts have increased the need for bolder action to curb emissions and help farmers adapt which could boost food security and lessen hunger, he said. “Cutting fossil fuel pollution will mean better health and huge savings for governments and households alike,” Stiell said.

Not everyone is convinced such warnings will be helpful.

“‘Two years to save the world’ is meaningless rhetoric — at best, it’s likely to be ignored, at worst, it will be counterproductive,” said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who is also a professor of international affairs.

Levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the air last year hit all-time highs, according to United States government calculations, while scientists calculate that the world’s carbon dioxide emissions jumped 1.1%. Last year was the hottest year on record by far, global temperature monitoring groups concluded.

If emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from burning of coal, oil and natural gas continue to rise or don’t start a sharp decline, Stiell said it “will further entrench the gross inequalities between the world’s richest and poorest countries and communities” that are being worsened by climate change.

And behind it all is money.

Stiell’s speech comes just ahead of meetings of The World Bank and other big multinational development institutions, where poorer nations, led by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley and Kenyan President William Ruto, are pushing for major reforms in the systems that loan money to poor nations, especially those hit by climate-related disasters.

In conjunction with that push, Stiell called for “a quantum leap this year in climate finance.” He called for debt relief for the countries that need it the most, saying they are spending $400 billion on debt financing instead of preparing for and preventing future climate change.

He called for more financial aid, not just loans, and more money from different groups like banks, the International Maritime Organization, and the G20, the world’s 20 most powerful economies. Those countries are responsible for 80% of the world’s heat-trapping emissions, he said.

“G20 leadership must be at the core of the solution, as it was during the great financial crisis,” Stiell said.

“Every day, finance ministers, CEOs, investors, and development bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past, towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future,” Stiell said. “And to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries benefit.”

Officials said the climate finance problem needs to be fixed by the end of the year with November’s climate negotiations in Baku, Azerbaijan, a crucial point.

Stiell is “absolutely right” that timing and finance are the heart of the matter, said longtime climate analyst Alden Meyer of European think tank E3G. The carbon action plans submitted by next year will “determine whether we can get on the trajectory of sharp emissions reductions needed to avoid much worse climate impacts than those we are already suffering today,” he said.

With so many elections and places where democracies on the brink, “climate finance related to carbon policy is on the line,” said Nancy Lindborg, president of the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, at the Skoll World Forum, an ideas conference in Oxford, England.

Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said Stiell was “listening to the science” — namely that global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade to meet the Paris climate accord’s ambition of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).

“Governments are nowhere near that, and disastrously many are still supporting new fossil fuel development,” Hare said. “We need to see a massive strengthening of action now - faster ramping up of renewables, electric vehicles and batteries - if we’re to get serious reductions by 2030. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.”
___
Keaten contributed from Geneva.
___
Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment
___
Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbears and Jamey Keaten at @jameykeaten.
___
The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
 
Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare said Stiell was “listening to the science” — namely that global emissions must be halved by the end of the decade to meet the Paris climate accord’s ambition of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
That's a political agreement, not science.
 
You'd think they have learned to stop making doomsday predictions with specific time windows by now.

Nha the smart move is put it towards the end of relevance of THIS generation, the more socially pious you are early on it captures you for life slow an steady, big wads of cash can be found from a bloody kill happy king or emperor to save there soul are nice one offs.

Can these scam artists not be sent on a heroic mission to the sun? The cost would likely be less than all those fucking green taxes.

Ironically Green Tax's do work when applied at the other end of the supply chain and also spreads it around more - if anything it drives inovation because the more you can reuse the less you pay in tax. I make some of my own charcoal and some jobsworth found out an tried to do an environmental assessment from me i made shit himself because i proved I was a carbon negative and tried to do me for anything an everything he could, but didn't get anything.

Apart from Nuclear a decision that they hate to backtrack on I do tend to agree we should be doing better I just disagree why I feel that way - They say less exploitation of foreign workers - I say employ more workers close to home FIRST, You say stop Subsidising farmers for out of season or non native crops - I say Eat local and Seasonal yourself then it takes effort and you dont seem to want to do that, I could mention many things here but you get the idea.

The problem is as I said the Poles are inverted for them to have an effect, Charging for plastic bags just ends up adding to peoples bill, charging the super markets for not having decent alternatives on a legitimate time scale - charging the food barrons for packing tins of beans more than is necessary?That would get shit done, not taxing the end user.

I say that as someone who owns a small business and sells things online - I'd rather have to show I made my Paper, Carboard, Cotton an Gum Arabic isn't polouting or at worst neutral, more so that the average plastic delivery window envolope.
 
Okay, what's the solution? If it involves stuff that even the Ant Hill Kids would call too culty for them, fuck off.

The solution is to get the pop under 500 million. Because some computer modeling from the late 60s / early 70s said so. Go read The Limits to Growth. You'll probably need to pirate it since its hard to come by and expensive physically.

Why do you think the culture has been against population growth since the 70s? Some of it is probably organic. Other is manufactured.
 
The record is 80 years by the way. They never mention that part.
It's often not even 80. A lot of the time, the "record" only goes back to the advent of consistent global satellite measurements in the mid 1970s. The fact that it was an unusually cold decade, meaning that all subsequent measurements are very likely to be warmer, is purely coincidence.
 
Back