It’ll be high stakes at COP26. Can the world agree on a plan to save the planet and what will it mean for Australia?
All eyes will be on Glasgow over the first two weeks of November as world leaders meet at the most important international climate summit in the past decade.
The COP26 summit is considered by many to be the last opportunity for world leaders to agree on a plan which would avert catastrophic global warming.
It’s been five years since 195 countries signed onto the Paris Agreement – a binding and universal treaty to limit global warming to below two degrees and pursue efforts to limit warming to one-point-five degrees.
The 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, concluded that unless there are rapid large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions this decade, the chances of limiting warming to two degrees or less will be beyond reach.
In Australia, temperatures have already risen 1.4 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
There’s been mounting international and domestic pressure on the Federal Government to embrace a net-zero emissions by 2050 commitment.
After securing a deal with coalition partner The Nationals, Prime Minister Scott Morrison will head to Glasgow with a mid-century net zero plan – but a target to reduce emissions by 30 – 35 percent by 2030 remains a projection rather than a firm commitment.
We asked UQ experts across a range of disciplines what their thoughts were ahead of COP26.
Associate Professor Matt McDonald
School of Political Science and International Studies
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Glasgow looms as a crucial moment in international attempts to limit harmful climate change, with over 100 world leaders in attendance.
The expectation, five years after the Paris Agreement was signed, was that this COP26 summit would see states commit to new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) as targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
It’s also an opportunity to agree on timetables for future commitments.
Beyond that, other crucial issues to be discussed in Glasgow are economic – what will developed nations commit (and when) to ensure that developing countries are able to transition away from fossil fuels, and what funds might be pledged to compensate for loss and damage associated with the effects of climate change in those countries.
We’ve seen plenty of momentum for action in advance of the summit, and plenty of states have announced new commitments and initiatives.
Whether this will be enough to get consequential and at times reluctant actors behind international action (China, Russia, India and of course Australia), and whether any momentum can be sustained beyond Glasgow, is yet to be seen.
Certainly, there’s plenty at stake.
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg FAA
ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
School of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Science
COP26 in Glasgow is a critical step in the urgent global ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels.
Many people are unaware that the current set of commitments to emission reduction are not enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.
The sobering analysis is that earth’s surface temperature will still increase to 3°C or more above the pre-industrial period, even if we were to implement all national and international policies for emission reduction today.
This would mean dramatic increases in the frequency and intensity of disasters such as fires and floods, big impacts on food security and human health, and the loss of critical ecosystems such as coral reefs and many forest systems.
We urge the world's nations to dig deeper to solve this problem once and for all. The solutions are in front of us, we just need to act!
The ocean is critical to the future of humanity under rapid climate change.
The ocean covers 71 per cent of the surface, and until recently was thought to be somewhat inert to big changes in global temperature. This is, unfortunately, not true.
Research over the past 15 years has indicated that climate change in the ocean is more ominous in terms of its lasting impacts and momentum.
It has only taken 50 years to increase the acidity of the world's upper ocean, but scientists estimate it will take at least 10,000 years for oceans to recover.
Sea level rise initiated today will continue for hundreds of years, with the worlds’ oceans rising by metres over hundreds to thousands of years.
Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet and provide home to tens of thousands of different species.
They also provide food and income to hundreds-of-millions of people along tropical coastlines, without which, many would be destitute.
Climate change is the number one threat to coral reef systems, with 70 to 90 per cent of coral reefs still likely to disappear even if we keep the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial period.
While rapid climate stabilisation is critical, we also need to protect the remaining reefs from non-climate stressors such as coastal pollution and overfishing.
If we can stabilise global temperature and protect the 10 to 30 per cent of coral reefs left behind, then we will have a good chance of saving the world’s coral reefs into the future.
It is an absolute necessity that the world’s nations and industries respond to this Code Red for our planet and put in place rapid and effective emission reduction schemes in every sector and corner of the earth.
If we fail to do so, the consequences will be unimaginable.
Dr Nina Lansbury
School of Public health
Faculty of Medicine
Some parts of the world, including Australia’s nearest neighbours, have more riding on COP26 outcomes than others.
Climate change, malnutrition, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are three of the most significant health challenges of this century, and they share fundamental underlying drivers.
Pacific Island countries are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change, which is likely to affect food and nutrition security directly and indirectly, and many countries already have existing high NCD burdens.
It’s a similar story in Australia’s own far north. The Torres Strait region is a part of Australia where the environmental and health impacts of climate change are keenly felt.
Torres Strait Islander voices need to be heard to allow self-determined responses to protect their health and homeland in the present and future.
Of course, localised efforts will not be sufficient in isolation. Actions to mitigate the causes of climate change and adapt to the impacts must occur in parallel nationally and globally.
The Torres Strait Islands are the canary in the climate change coalmine.
There is escalating outrage about these and other climate impacts on health by Traditional Owners and by medical personnel.
Both groups are calling for urgent climate action.
Professor Anthony Richardson
School of Mathematics and Physics Faculty of Science
The timelines for when we reach critical global temperature thresholds to avoid some of the worse climate impacts are getting much closer.
The IPCC Working Group 1 report is now out, and under all emission scenarios, warming will hit 1.5 degrees by 2040, and by early 2030s on our current path.
COP26 will be a good test of the appetite of governments to make more meaningful commitments and avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change.
Strong climate action, coupled with robust fisheries management, is needed to maintain global fish biomass at current levels into the future.
With global warming, the amount of phytoplankton in the ocean (small plants at the base of the marine food web) is reduced.
This is because of enhanced stratification (warming of surface layers), reducing nutrients in the surface sun-lit layers from deeper in the water column, which then reduces phytoplankton biomass and growth.
This then has big implications for fish, marine mammals and seabirds that feed on those small plants. In a recent paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, we worked as part of Fish-MIP, a global modelling inter-comparison project, to project what would happen to fish biomass in the future.
We used seven global marine ecosystem models, including the Zooplankton Model of Size Spectra (ZooMSS) all developed at UQ.
These ecosystem models take outputs of temperature and the amount of phytoplankton from the Earth System Models that are used in the IPCC process, and estimate how changes in these variables under climate change will affect marine food webs.
Based on outputs from all Fish-MIP models, we found that under a high emissions future there is likely to be a global decline in fish biomass of 15 per cent by 2100.
We will need to take strong action now if we are to avoid potentially large losses in income, jobs and dietary protein if global fish biomass declines.
Professor Peta Ashworth
Director, Andrew N. Liveris Academy for Innovation and Leadership
Chair, Sustainable Energy Futures
School of Chemical Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology
Reflecting on the results of a national survey we ran in late 2017 (as part of the national hydrogen strategy), “cautiously optimistic” was the way then Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel described the Australian public’s attitude towards hydrogen.
It is this description that represents my hopes and aspirations for what will emerge from the COP26 meeting in Glasgow.
I am optimistic because based on the latest warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is surely impossible for governments to avoid the explicit need for rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
I’m cautious because the likelihood of achieving a combined commitment still feels elusive.
According to national surveys I have undertaken from as far back as 2006, most Australians consider climate change to be an issue but cannot agree on a way to address the problem.
This is best evidenced by the range of political views we hear on this issue.
While this lack of agreement is not a problem, we need governments to reach consensus on a solution that meets the needs of both the developed and developing worlds.
China’s commitment to carbon neutrality, Europe’s proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (which forces the hand of trading partners like Australia), and the range of technologies we have at our fingertips is also cause for optimism.
There really seems to be no excuse.
Still, I remain cautious because while many countries have experienced devastating weather events over the past few years, governments can quickly forget.
Let’s hope the warnings from the IPCC, along with progressive governments and some company CEOs, will lead the way in addressing this global challenge.
Associate Professor Ian MacKenzie
School of Economics
Faculty of Business, Economics and Law
Australia’s decarbonization plan to net zero emissions by 2050 is achievable.
While there exist many pathways toward net zero, a key focus is how we get there in the best possible way.
We currently reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, but this is inadequate for a net zero 2050 target.
Luckily, the solutions are clear and have been tried-and-tested across the world.
To decarbonize we need, at the federal level, the establishment of an economic instrument to mitigate pollution. Yes – I mean the dreaded return of carbon pricing.
It is well known among economists that the best way to reduce greenhouse gases in a cost-effective way is to implement either a carbon tax or pollution market.
This type of regulation minimizes the cost of pollution reduction, potentially raises tax revenue, and provides an incentive for polluters to invest in green technologies.
It is quite simple: we already have an Australian carbon market.
The private sector has done a great job in sustaining this market since carbon pricing was repealed in 2014.
The Federal Government can assist by ensuring large polluters – such as electricity producers and some industrial processes – are included in our greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.
Doing nothing is no longer an option.
As a global participant, Australia will be penalized on international markets (through carbon adjustment taxes) if we do not actively reduce emissions.
Contrary to what some people may say, we can reduce emissions, increase employment, and sustain economic growth.
Let us hope for some Scottish enlightenment at Glasgow COP26.
Dr Belinda Wade
School of Business
Faculty of Business, Economics and Law
Whether Australia achieves net zero by 2050 will be determined by the culmination of decisions by many individuals.
Increasingly companies, including Blue Scope, ANZ and Rio Tinto, are publicly announcing aspirational net-zero targets.
Corporate leadership on the issue is rightfully being applauded but given the scale of the change required we need to rapidly convert targets into concrete and transparent action.
So, what is needed to make net-zero a reality?
A significant mobilisation of capital will be required to fund the construction of the low carbon assets and their supporting infrastructure.
At a decisions level, this capital mobilisation towards greenfield investments is challenging due to increased perceptions of risk and is required on an accelerated and massive scale.
In addition to new assets, companies will need to retire or transform existing assets potentially at a significant write down of value.
Some businesses will need to rethink their business models and go through a period of creative destruction with new products cannibalising existing ones.
Regions where economies are linked to fossil fuel extraction or usage will need to attract alternative sectors to maintain prosperity and avenues for employment.
We all need to question whether the way we are currently operating our lives, our businesses and our governments is consistent with a net-zero goal, and where they are not, we need to make the difficult decision to realign.
Join the conversation
What do you think the outcomes of COP26 will be?
Let us know by leaving a comment below (your comments here are governed by Facebook Terms of Service and UQ Social Media Terms of Use).
Get the latest UQ research news delivered straight to your inbox.
Built with Shorthand