There is a climate and ecological emergency, caused by humans – all of us but some much more than others – often without realising our impact. These problems are affecting our planet and our communities already, and are predicted to get much worse unless we rapidly take action. The good news is that we do have all the knowledge and technologies needed to solve these problems – we simply have act, and fast! This page provides further detail on the high level solutions, building on the shorter summary given by the Climate and ecological emergency page.
By tackling the fundamental causes of many linked crises together (including the climate and ecological emergency, water scarcity, health, air quality, the over-use of fertilisers etc) we can maximise our impact. The UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals seek to frame the full range of core linked issues so they can be considered holistically when determining solutions.
Governments around the world must play a major role in co-ordinating the climate and ecological emergency response efforts. They have the power to regulate and allocate funding to incentivise eco-friendly products and activities and discourage or ban environmentally damaging products and activities. Government policy significantly impacts the operations of organisations and individuals and the opportunity of individuals to reduce their personal environmental impact. Government is the entity with the most opportunity to influence the system. Don’t forget that Government and organisations are themselves run by groups of individuals, so influencing individuals to acknowledge the climate and ecological emergency and take action to address it will underpin Governmental or organisational change. Governments have previously come together and agreed to tackle environmental crises, such as the hole in the ozone layer, for which actions were agreed in the Montreal Protocol (1987) to limit and then eliminate the use of damaging CFC gases. They can come together and agree necessary actions once again. Climate justice must be a key consideration for Governments as they progress this.
Technological solutions such as increased use of energy efficient or renewable energy technology will be required, but technological solutions alone are insufficient; social solutions including the setting of regulations, the development of effective finance to promote solutions, and behavioural changes by individuals will also be critical.
Thankfully, as confirmed in IPCC’s AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report, in recent years there has been a sustained reduction in the upfront costs of solar energy, wind energy, and lithium-ion batteries, as well as large increases in their deployment. This has made them cost effective to implement compared to fossil fuels. IPCC’s report also suggests that the global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C exceeds the cost of mitigation actions in most literature, whilst there are similar benefits vs costs when targeting 1.5°C. Essentially this says that addressing the climate emergency, with all the associated benefits, may have limited impact on or may even improve our economy in the long run. Upfront costs should be seen as attractive investments in our future. IPCC’s report also outlines available climate mitigation actions and assesses associated costs in Figure SPM.7 below. They confirm that many options are available now in all sectors that could offer substantial potential to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030.
During the coronavirus pandemic there has been a clear short-term reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of reduced consumption of certain products and activities. Whilst the driver for this reduction is wholly tragic, the changes in behaviour and the observed reduction serve to clearly evidence and illustrate the large impact of our cumulative consumption choices have on CO2 emissions and other environmental factors like air pollution, and the benefits of changing our behaviour.
The Centre for Alternative Technology‘s Zero Carbon Britain: Rising to the Climate Emergency report assesses how net zero carbon could be achieved in the UK whilst also restoring our ecosystems. They conclude that “we already have the tools and technology needed to efficiently power the UK with 100% renewable energy, to feed ourselves sustainably and so to play our part in leaving a safe and habitable climate for our children and future generations.”
This will require rapid changes including widespread improvements in energy efficiency, increases in renewable energy generation, changes in land use and land management techniques, and some changes to individual behaviour including some reduction in travel and a level of dietary change (which will bring health benefits).
On necessary timescales the report states that “whilst a net zero date well in advance of 2050 is vital, the climate emergency arises from the total amount of carbon released rather than any particular end point. It is vital that we focus on ambitious, large-scale, near-term emission reductions, strengthening interim carbon budgets and bringing forward policies to get zero carbon solutions deployed at scale in the very near future.“
In August 2021, the IPCC press release to their AR6 Climate Change 2021:The Physical Science Basis report outlined how “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach” i.e. immediate and transformative global action is required.
Offsetting involves paying an organisation to reduce CO2 emissions on your behalf by making a change or removing CO2 from the atmosphere elsewhere in the world. IPCC’s AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report confirms that a level offsetting, otherwise known as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), will be critical to limit global warming to even 2°C.
A level of offsetting may be critical to addressing the Climate and ecological emergency, but the highest priority is to all take Action to reduce our environmental impact. The offsetting mechanisms available to us fall well short of the capacity to absorb all of the CO2 emitted globally. For instance there is insufficient suitable land area available by far to plant the number of trees to absorb all of the CO2 emitted globally. Similarly, for us all to get to net zero carbon as required, we can’t simply rely on the reductions that others make as they themselves will also need to get to net zero carbon.
Nature-based approaches to offsetting (e.g. rewilding) are often the most cost effective and have the most potential for a self-sustaining legacy. For instance, if a degraded area is naturally restored (e.g. by allowing native and suitable trees or shrubs or meadows to regrow), these will tend to have positive impacts including (but not limited to):
- Removing CO2 from the atmosphere as plants grow
- Providing a habitat for a wide variety of species
- Supporting a wide variety of pollinators that can help improve yields on nearby farms.
- Capturing rainwater, slowing run-off, and reducing the flood risk downstream
- Improving the water quality that enters rivers
- Reducing soil erosion
- Improving our air quality
- Providing opportunities for recreation and improved health and wellbeing
Nature-based approaches can contribute towards addressing many of the environmental-focused UN SDGs e.g. Climate Change and Life on Land. However, to give such projects the best chance to succeed in the long run and fulfil their promise, social factors are critical. Local communities must be engaged and have a key stake in projects such that they support and manage the projects and receive fair recompense (e.g. pay from carbon offset money). When this is achieved effectively it can also contribute to many of the social-focused UN SDGs, including:
- No poverty
- Zero hunger
- Decent work and economic growth
- Sustainable cities and communities
Nature-based approaches may need relatively little management, although active management can be particularly valuable when we need to create specific habitats to support specific species in danger of extinction.
With active management we should also ensure that the right tree or feature goes in the right place, fit for the local context and minimising the risk of human and natural disturbance (which can reverse the carbon storage and nature benefits). Tree planting can be damaging if done without considering the context and some areas may not be suitable for tree planting.
Action to address climate change must include both mitigation and adaption, as we have already set climate change in motion. Mitigation (i.e. reducing our CO2 emissions) is most commonly focused on because this addresses the root cause of climate change. Adaption however, seeks to put in place infrastructure that will help us live with the future consequences of climate change e.g. making sure homes don’t overheat during hot summers and reducing flood risk through appropriate measures. Considering adaption will ensure that the resources that we invest now (e.g. the infrastructure or buildings that we build) will be suitable for use in a warming world, with a long lifespan and will not require a costly redesign later on. Nature-based approaches often help with adaption e.g. urban greening such as tree planting and the creation of water features can help to cool cities and reduce the impacts of increasingly extreme heat waves.
For further information on climate change adaption read the IPCC’s AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability report.
For information on the interlinked climate and ecological crises, other linked crises and solutions at grassroots level (for individuals) solutions see the Climate and ecological emergency page.