Extending the Conversation: Q&As with Professor Lesley Hughes. PVC, Research Integrity and Development, Distinguished Professor of Biological Science.
Professor Lesley Hughes Distinguished Professor of Biology and Pro Vice-Chancellor at Macquarie University and founding Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia, responds to questions posed at the inaugural Climate and Peace forum offered on 6th August 2020, by the combined Rotary Clubs of Sydney to promote engagement and bring Climate and Peace issues into mainstream decisions.
We invite you to continue these important discussions and join us again on the 10th November: https://bit.ly/2FcPgg1
- Do you think Covid-19 has a positive impact on slowing down climate change? And – How will you ensure more commitment to climate change action in the COVID 19 era?
In short, there has been a reduction in emissions, but the effect is likely to be temporary and not enough to change the climate trajectory unless post-pandemic commitments to emissions reduction ramp up considerably. Here are some extracts from the latest authoritative study about pandemic-associated emissions reductions (Le Quere C et al (2020) Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change 10: 647–653)
“Daily global CO2 emissions decreased by –17% (–11 to –25% for ±1σ) by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, just under half from changes in surface transport. At their peak, emissions in individual countries decreased by –26% on average. The impact on 2020 annual emissions depends on the duration of the confinement, with a low estimate of –4% (–2 to –7%) if prepandemic conditions return by mid-June, and a high estimate of –7% (–3 to –13%) if some restrictions remain worldwide until the end of 2020.
The estimated decrease in daily fossil CO2 emissions from the severe and forced confinement of world populations of –17% (–11 to –25%) at its peak are extreme and probably unseen before. Still, these only correspond to the level of emissions in 2006. The associated annual decrease will be much lower (–4.2 to –7.5% according to our sensitivity tests), which is comparable to the rates of decrease needed year-on-year over the next decades to limit climate change to a 1.5 °C warming. These numbers put in perspective both the large growth in global emissions observed over the past 14 years and the size of the challenge we have to limit climate change in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Furthermore, most changes observed in 2020 are likely to be temporary as they do not reflect structural changes in the economic, transport or energy systems. The social trauma of confinement and associated changes could alter the future trajectory in unpredictable ways, but social responses alone, as shown here, would not drive the deep and sustained reductions needed to reach net-zero emissions. Scenarios of low-energy and/or material demand explored for climate stabilization explicitly aim to match reduced demand with higher well-being, an objective that is not met by mandatory confinements. Still, opportunities exist to set structural changes in motion by implementing economic stimuli aligned with low carbon pathways.”
- Engaging citizens is crucial, as we live in democracies. So, what will be the best way to get everyone on board? “The carrot” (promises of “hope” and benefits – or “the stick” (regulation, carbon fee)?
We need a combination of all strategies – if we knew that a single one worked; we would have done it already! Different messages work better with different people – there’s no one size fits all. But we do know that positive messages resonate better than constant negative ones.
- How can we include the effects from plastic pollution and the importance of “end plastic soup” more into the climate change agenda?
My personal view is that the plastics agenda should be kept separate. We have seen politicians like Scott Morrison use action on plastics to distract attention from a lack of policies tackling climate change, confounding the two issues. The plastics issue is certainly important, but climate is more so.
- Agriculture is the major CO2 emitter. How do you propose to deal with this including international food security?
Tackling agriculture emissions also needs a combination of strategies, from reducing meat and dairy consumption (which would make the most difference), to using new livestock feedstuffs to reduce methane, to reducing household and industrial food waste, to electrifying industrial processes and transport. There are also rapidly developing fermentation technologies which are bringing the prospect of animal protein being produced without the need for animals at all – this will make a huge difference to the amount of land, water and emissions associated with food production.
- There is a lot of housing being constructed in areas that will suffer from the increased heat waves – poor insulation, and no provision for trees. What action should we take?
Planning regulations need to be done with a climate change lens – this includes things like proximity to low lying coastal areas, the bushland interface with respect to fire risk, sewage systems with respect to flooding risk etc. The insurance industry is also increasingly playing a part – when a property can’t be insured, behaviour changes quickly.
- Should we challenge our local councils about to make improvements to energy used and for subsequent health service demands?
You should make sure your council is a member of the Cities Power Partnership – see https://citiespowerpartnership.org.au/
- How can we get Australian politicians to accept the science of climate change and to act with the urgency that this problem requires to stop environmental destruction?
If I knew the answer to that I wouldn’t be giving a talk every week! The short answer is that politicians will mostly only act if they think they will lose their jobs if they don’t. So, it’s the electorate that counts, and we need to work on getting people to make climate their no. 1 voting issue. But ultimately it matters what people do, not what they think. We need to focus on getting governments, business, the community, and individuals to undertake actions that reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere, regardless of motivation. So, making actions easy, and focusing on those with multiple co-benefits (e.g. saving money, health etc.) will be more successful than just trying to give politicians more information.
- What can an average person do to help climate change in everyday life?
Go to any number of websites for a climate action tool kit and select the things that you can do (e.g. see Climate Council toolkit, Climate for Change, 1 Million Women etc.). Main things you can do is vote for political parties with the best climate policies, move your money out of banks, superannuation funds and insurance companies that invest in fossil fuels, pay for Greenpower or get solar panels and a battery, get an electric car, eat less meat and dairy, don’t waste food, only buy manufactured goods that you really need, buy local, offset flights or don’t fly, join an advocacy group or donate to one etc.
- How significant do you believe the role of women in leadership is (or lack thereof), in achieving climate action/behaviour change? Both from a business and local/community/personal perspective.
We need good leadership period, whether from men or women. But if you’re particularly interested in the role that women can play see the 1 Million Women website (https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/).
- What are the most important areas of study to addressing climate change?
As we need multiple solutions, we need multiple forms of knowledge, from climate science, environmental science, sustainability, social science, psychology, law and economics. Virtually every discipline can be approached with a climate lens.
Recent Comments