More and more experts agree: the objectives of the Paris agreements will no longer be achieved. Eight years after the historic international treaty to reduce emissions, the trajectory on which the planet finds itself makes it almost impossible to imagine keeping the increase in temperatures within one and a half degrees compared to the pre-industrial era. And in the meantime, the effects of climate change are becoming more and more relevant: extreme weather events, heat waves, and years of record temperatures coming one after the other. What can be done at this point to protect ourselves, as much as possible, from the effects of global warming? One possible answer is to adapt, that is, to get to work to make our cities, our homes, and our infrastructures more suited to the climate of the future. Accepting the idea that in the future the world, even around us, will be very different from what we are used to.
This is a very current topic, which in Italy should certainly be discussed with less timidity. However, without letting it turn into a convenient excuse: accepting that man-made climate change is now inevitable does not mean stopping working to limit its scope. Because a world two degrees warmer than the one we know is always better than one in which average temperatures jump five, or maybe 10, degrees higher in the space of a few decades. In short, there is still time to roll up our sleeves and do our part. Without being influenced by fake news and conspiracy theories. But at the same time avoiding giving in to pessimism. Giulio Betti, meteorologist and climatologist of the Cnr and of the LaMMA consortium of Florence, thinks so and recently published for Aboca “It’s always been hot! And other convenient lies about climate change.” A book in which he makes use of his 20 years of experience in the field to help the reader navigate between fake news, legitimate doubts and excesses of catastrophism, which contribute to debasing the debate on climate change. We interviewed him to hear what awaits us in the coming years, and what we and those who govern us should do to limit the risks.
Doctor Betti, adaptation and mitigation are key themes in your book. What relationship is there between the two?
“These are two concepts that must go in parallel. However, if 40 years ago mitigation was a priority, i.e. cutting emissions of climate-altering gases, because it was still possible to prevent climate change from significantly modifying our planet, and to limit it as much as possible the consequences, today unfortunately it is no longer sufficient. These consequences have partly arrived, and therefore we must take action by giving priority to adaptation, that is, creating infrastructures, both artificial and natural, which can reduce the impacts of climate change which has continued. to move forward because it has been missing adequate mitigation.”
However, making adaptation more central should not be an excuse to give up on the mitigation front, right?
“Exactly. Historically, the discussion on anthropogenic climate change has gone through various phases. At the beginning, climate change did not exist, it was denied. Then people started to say that yes, the change exists, but man is not the cause Now it seems to me that we have reached the third step: “Yes, there are changes and man is probably the cause, but what can we do? We can’t go back to the stone age”. this is an argument If it is true that it is now essential to work to adapt to climate change, because we are in a feedback system, which will take us beyond the level and a half of Paris, it is still essential to work to reduce emissions , all the adaptation efforts in the next ten years risk no longer being sufficient, because in the meantime the temperature continues to increase, and therefore the works that I am going to create, which are calibrated to the current scenario, are no longer useful, because in the meantime the climate change continued to worsen. So it is clear that the two things can only go in parallel. If we don’t stop the advance of climate change, we risk adapting to a world that will no longer exist by the time we finish preparing.”
So is the objective of the Paris Agreement now unrealistic? What scenarios are we facing?
“Today we must accept that the Paris objective has not been achieved, and it is a fundamental, enormous failure. Perhaps it will be possible to contain the average temperature increase to within two degrees, but at best. Personally I believe that, given the current policies and how the world has been going in recent years, the current scenario will take us to at least two and seven degrees higher. And it is a sad observation. Of course, we are no longer faced with the catastrophic scenario of an increase of five degrees. this must be said. But two degrees and seven it is anyway a scenario that will upset the planet from many points of view. So in my opinion if we were to take stock of the costs and benefits that a world two degrees, two and a half degrees warmer would entail, I think logic would tell us to start seriously about cutting emissions. Cutting does not mean that overnight I will no longer burn fossil fuels. It is clear that it is not possible to go from a society based 80% on oil and coal to one based entirely on oil in 10 years. renewable. And in fact there is talk of transition, of reaching net carbon zero, that is, compensating emissions with absorptions. And to do this we need to cut emissions by at least 80% between now and the end of the century, otherwise we will never get out of this.”
Will we make it?
“In the book I try to communicate optimism and realism. Because in front of young people you cannot say that everything is lost. Man has the technologies, he has the knowledge. This gives me confidence: we know the problem, we know how to solve it and we have the means to do it. It is now only a political question, and I hope that the new generations will be able to overcome it. There is a base of young people who know how important it is to protect the planet we know, and among them there are also investors and decision makers, who no longer want to know about it fossil fuels and who do not want to be co-responsible for a disaster. In the book I talk about it, I give many examples of how renewables and technological innovations are growing all over the world. Maybe not in Italy, but in the rest of the world, yes, and in a significant way also very rapid. The solution is the energy mix. In 50 years we will be able to have a mix in which I have 80% renewables and 20% fossil fuels, and we will be fine to do so.”
In the book you debunk many of the most common lies used to deny climate change. But he is keen to say that we shouldn’t even do the opposite, exaggerate with catastrophism.
“I think we are faced with a problem that is already, in itself, a pretty big one. Why exaggerate and make it apocalyptic? The more I raise the alarm level, the more this alarm is ignored, the more mistrust it generates. We simply have to say things as they are. The situation is serious, not very serious. If there is a flood, it is very likely that climate change has intensified the rains. But it is equally true that the territory is poorly maintained, that we have problems of instability always hydrogeological. And that climate change can therefore become an excuse. Catastrophism – saying that in ten years we will all be extinct – is not good, first of all, for those who really want to get out of this problem.”
So let’s be realistic. What does a planet with two degrees and seven plus look like?
“Two degrees and seven is a lot. The problem is not just how much the temperature rises. The problem is that if you warm a planet by two degrees and seven in 100, 150 years, the ecosystems cannot adapt. In the past the planet it has already been warmer by three, four or five degrees. What should concern us is how the ecosystems, on which we also depend, react seven means that there will be areas – not all of the earth, but some areas – where you will actually no longer be able to live because they will be very hot and extremely dry. Or there will be areas where you will have such intense and frequent heat waves that will last for months. year you will be forced to stay indoors. And others in which rainfall becomes much stronger, and will periodically produce floods. We will have a Mediterranean invaded by tropical species, and with much reduced biodiversity compared to today they will be taller than one ten centimeters, which seem like a small thing but cause waves that perhaps go a hundred meters further inland during a storm. And this changes living conditions, our habits. We risk famines, epidemics, migrations, wars. Maybe we in Europe will avoid them, but elsewhere they will exist and obviously they will have repercussions on us too. A world with two degrees and seven more is not a finite world. It is not a world in which humanity becomes extinct. But it will certainly be a less welcoming, and less beautiful, world than the one we live in today.”