IPCC: Always look on the demand-side of life
The latest summary report shows us what to do to mitigate and how to adapt for a liveable future, and it's living the 1.5-degree lifestyle.
The IPCC just dropped the summary for policymakers of the “synthesis report of the sixth assessment report.” The summary is the document hammered out and approved by all the participating nations, which one can imagine is a challenge. Writing in Heated, in a post titled The IPCC makes it clear: fossil fuels must go, Arielle Samuelson notes that it calls for “a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels.”
But every time I see a reference to fossil fuels, I keep seeing a certain word: abatement, such as “Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%) (high confidence).” When I reviewed the IPCC Working Group III report, I noted that it’s code, “one of those compromises with fossil fuel producers claiming they can abate their emissions with carbon capture and storage (CCS).”
As long as we’re abating, we’re drilling and burning fossil fuels. But if you ignore that abatement word, the report is clear that all is not lost if we change our ways.
This graph from the report is quite dire; the red line is where we go if we keep doing what we are doing and keep the promises we have made to date. The blue is where we should go, and the green is the fallback position. Needless to say, we are not doing enough. As the press release notes,
“Every increment of warming results in rapidly escalating hazards. More intense heatwaves, heavier rainfall and other weather extremes further increase risks for human health and ecosystems. In every region, people are dying from extreme heat. Climate-driven food and water insecurity is expected to increase with increased warming. When the risks combine with other adverse events, such as pandemics or conflicts, they become even more difficult to manage.”
But don’t give up yet; there’s more.
The supply side vs the demand side
Headlines are dire, World on ‘thin ice’ as UN climate report gives stark warning or UN warns that the ‘climate time bomb’ is ticking. But as UN Chief Antonio Guterres tweets, the document lays out a pathway for climate action and staying under 1.5 degrees of heating.
There are two kinds of people offering solutions to the climate crisis; in Canada and the UK, the supply-side people promise Small Modular Reactors, hydrogen, electric cars and carbon capture and storage. Alas, the mitigation options in the report only mention hydrogen for fuel-switching for industry, where it can be used to make ammonia.
Regarding energy supply, fossil carbon capture and storage comes last on the list, mitigates the least carbon, and is a hot bright red for being the most expensive. Nuclear is a close second. The IPCC’s top pick for energy: Solar and wind, which is still banned onshore in the UK, and which Ontario’s Doug Ford wants to get rid of. Solar is being banned all over the USA.
Demand-side people like the realists at the IPCC call for mitigation or consumption reductions, noting that grabbing all the options costing less than $100 per ton of CO2e would cut emissions in half by 2030.
With land, water and food, they call for “sustainable forest management, forest conservation and restoration, reforestation and afforestation.” Healthier diets (less meat) and less food waste are on the menu.
For settlements and infrastructure, note how blue and cheap public transit and bikes are and how their impact is almost as significant as electric vehicles. Efficient buildings are the biggest bar, but they are expensive. This is my favourite section:
Key adaptation and mitigation elements in cities include considering climate change impacts and risks (e.g. through climate services) in the design and planning of settlements and infrastructure; land use planning to achieve compact urban form, co-location of jobs and housing; supporting public transport and active mobility (e.g., walking and cycling); the efficient design, construction, retrofit, and use of buildings; reducing and changing energy and material consumption; sufficiency, [my favourite word] material substitution; and electrification in combination with low emissions sources (high confidence).
They define sufficiency in the footnotes as “A set of measures and daily practices that avoid demand for energy, materials, land, and water while delivering human well-being for all within planetary boundaries.” I put it differently in my upcoming book: “We have to stop thinking only about efficiency, making something slightly better, and start thinking about sufficiency: what do we really need?
In Industry, fuel switching is the biggest. This is “switching [from coal] to electricity, hydrogen, bioenergy and natural gas” for industrial processes. Next is reducing the emission of fluorinated gas, which will be a challenge as we introduce heat pumps for everything. Carbon Capture is down at the very bottom, very small, and very red.
Demand-side mitigation is huge. It’s all about using less of everything.
“Food shows demand-side potential of socio-cultural factors and infrastructure use, and changes in land-use patterns enabled by change in food demand. Demand-side measures and new ways of end-use service provision can reduce global GHG emissions in end-use sectors (buildings, land transport, food) by 40–70% by 2050 compared to baseline scenarios, while some regions and socioeconomic groups require additional energy and resources. The last row shows how demand-side mitigation options in other sectors can influence overall electricity demand.”
In other words: give up red meat, live in apartments, and get a bike. As the press release notes:
“Changes in the food sector, electricity, transport, industry, buildings and land-use can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, they can make it easier for people to lead low-carbon lifestyles, which will also improve health and wellbeing. A better understanding of the consequences of overconsumption can help people make more informed choices.”
Alas, they also say, “Political commitment, coordinated policies, international cooperation, ecosystem stewardship and inclusive governance are all important for effective and equitable climate action.” And we have far too little of that.
Living the 1.5 Degree Lifestyle
So here we are in 2023 with a plan: We build lots of renewable power and use it sparingly; We learn to live like a vegan in Vienna, which would not be such a bad life but will require getting used to apartments, bikes and transit, with less schnitzel.
Or, the fossil fuel-producing countries will keep drilling while promising “abatement,” hydrogen, and mini-nukes. We will keep driving pickup trucks and SUVs home to Sprawlville for dinner of hamburgers cooked on our gas ranges.
It’s our choice.
Looking on the demand side, there is my mantra. Less heating and cooling (GreenBetween13C-30C/55F-85F, don't heat above 13C/55F, don't cool below 30C/85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it now! Tenaciously encourage others to do it now!
Asking for demand-side reductions is simply not enough. We have to figure out policy solutions that make lifestyle choices possible and incentivized. And we have to build into fuel costs the cost of offsetting fossil emissions by rebuilding ecological systems.