Paris agreement and global warming
The hypothesis of preventing the increase in global temperature from exceeding one and a half degrees, as promised at the 2015 Paris summit, now appears to have as little as a 1% chance of success: this is the forecast on global warming for 2100 provided by experts from the University of Washington, according to whom the actual increase is set to reach around 3.2 degrees.
Even if carbon dioxide emissions continue to fall during the 21st and 22nd centuries, that decrease would not be sufficient. According to the study’s coordinator Adrian Raftery, the best possible hypothesis is a rise of less than two degrees; a target which, nonetheless, would require a huge effort over the next 80 years.
For this to be a success, it would be essential to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases produced from the current level of 54 million tonnes per year to just 42 million tonnes per year by 2030. This target would certainly be achievable if key nations joined forces, but in any case would not enable the figure of one and a half degrees promised at the Paris summit to be reached.
Even if humans suddenly stopped producing damaging emissions completely, the temperature would still rise by 1.3 degrees by the year 2100, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and the centuries- or millennia- old presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. At current rates however, a rise of one and a half degrees is likely to be reached in just 15 years.
Another recent study discusses the effects of global warming on the world’s population, with an estimated 60,000 mortalities by 2030 and 260,000 mortalities by 2100 resulting from climate change. These dramatic figures derive from the correlation between heat, the increase in surface ozone levels, the increase in fine particle pollutants and the reduction in the quantity of rain capable of cleaning the air of pollutants.
According to an investigation published in Lancet Planetary Health, temperature containment would entail an expenditure of between 22 and 41 billion dollars, but would lead to savings in terms of healthcare for those suffering from climate-related pathologies of up to two and a half times that amount.
This was the conclusion of researchers at the Basque Centre for Climate Change, who explained how the various potential benefits of curtailing global warming would include the saving of almost 100 million human lives over the next 30 years. According to the experts, by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, a double advantage would be achieved:
- The reduction of the greenhouse effect (and consequently global warming);
- and the reduction of atmospheric pollution (and a resulting drop in the number of cases of climate-related illnesses).
However, that is not all: although we have so far only discussed the indirect benefits associated with savings in terms of healthcare, in reality, the battle against rising temperatures would also bring savings in terms of the costs of repairing damage caused by extreme weather patterns linked to global warming, which cause floods, high tides, storms etc.
Unfortunately, those who oppose the implementation of strategies to combat global warming often support their point of view by citing the costs involved in emission control, while basing their theories on over-simplistic reasoning. Their arguments do not take into account the real benefits and savings that the public would obtain if such a policy was put into practice.
So that concludes our brief summary of the current global warming situation: a problem which needs to be resolved as soon as possible in order to protect ourselves and the entire planet, which has been forced to suffer for countless decades the excesses of a population ignorant of the real consequences of its actions.
Translated by Joanne Beckwith
