Global Heat Waves: Paris Climate Agreement Reaches Boiling Point

A new study released this week stressed the dire need to address climate change not only as a scientific issue, but a humanitarian one as well. By Eun-Soom Im and colleagues, the study predicts that by 2100 most of South Asia and parts of the Middle East will become uninhabitable. This includes Pakistan, India, Dubai, and Bangladesh. This region is home to nearly one fifth of the world’s current population, and it is growing.

The relative humidity in the air is measured by a “wet bulb” thermometer. Our normal body temperature lies around 37°C and the temperature at our skin at roughly 35°C. The minor difference is a crucial aspect of our body’s heat regulation, particularly in cooling off. If the wet bulb temperature of the environment reaches 35°C or greater it drastically impairs our capability to cool down, resulting in death after just a few hours. According to the report, by 2100 around 30% of the world’s population will be living in areas that will experience a yearly wet bulb temperature of at least 31°C, while currently, that percentage is zero. In 2015, India and Pakistan experienced heat waves of high wet bulb temperatures that killed 3,500 people. This report beckons the importance of the Paris Agreement. The target set in the agreement is to keep the increase of the planet’s temperature below 2°C. This report makes it clear that by the end of the century the temperature increase of the planet will be much higher, close to the limits of human survival even, if there are not dramatic reductions in carbon emissions.

The effects of climate change and carbon emissions will be the greatest for countries and areas that are contributing the least to the problem. Elfaith Eltahir, who worked on the study, said that “It presents a dilemma for India between the need to grow economically at a fast pace, consuming fossil fuels, and the need to avoid such potentially lethal impacts.” India’s current population is around 1.324 billion, and 2011 estimates suggest that 276 million of those people are living in poverty. It is the people already suffering that will be most at risk in the future annual heat waves in addition to India’s farming and rural communities. Yet, India and the other countries of South Asia have contributed the least. As Professor Chris Huntingford aptly said to The Guardian “If given just one word to describe climate change, then ‘unfairness’ would be a good candidate.” Jeremy Pal, who also worked on the report, made the important revelation that South Asia contains 80% of the world’s poorest populations and contributes only a tenth of carbon emissions globally. Larger industrial countries, such as the USA, the UK and other Western European countries contribute the most. Not only do larger industrial countries contribute the most, but they have the financial means to implement the necessary changes to protect the rest of the globe from undue suffering.

This is the importance of Paris Agreement: larger global powers putting aside selfish agendas to protect the lives of the world’s worst off. However, President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement in June early this year could mean that temperature increases go beyond the 2°C set out by the Paris Agreement. Russia, Turkey and Switzerland have yet to accept or reject the agreement. As three highly influential countries, their decisions could make better or worsen the projected outcomes.

Currently there are two options: to essentially do nothing and let things stay as is, or find ways to reduce carbon emissions and keep the temperature increase below 2°C. First let us consider if we made no attempt to reduce emissions. The report estimates that between 2071-2100 at least 4% of the world’s population would experience “survivable” heatwaves of a wet bulb temperature 35°C or higher. Approximately 75% of South Asia’s population are expected to be impacted. In particular, the Indian cities of Lucknow and Patna, which each are home to more than two million people. Furthermore, it is predicted that by the end of the century the planet temperature will increase by a dramatic 4.9°C. Currently heatwave-like events have a 4% chance of occurring in a given year–by 2100, if nothing is done about carbon emissions, South Asia can expect at least one heat event a year. The report does point out that even if the Paris Agreement guidelines were met there would still be a 50% chance of heat waves occurring yearly. While this is still not an ideal outcome, at least it is not accepting that the worst outcome is the only outcome.

The authors of the report estimated that if carbon emissions were reduced to the Paris Agreement guidelines then there would still be an increase of roughly 2°C for planet temperatures. However, in this scenario of accepting the Paris Agreement terms the wet bulb temperature is not expected to reach 35°C anywhere in South Asia. This means that worse impacts of climate change can be averted if countries that have the largest emissions and the greatest means of reducing emissions accept the agreement–developed countries such as the USA, which have the means of finding alternatives to fossil fuels for the greater good of less fortunate countries. A secondary study by Adrian Raftery and others from the University of Washington has stated that keeping temperature increase to 2°C is possible by “major, sustained effort on all fronts over the next 80 years.” This study shows that there is a 90% chance that the temperature will increase between 2°C and 4.9°C by 2100 if there is not an abrupt change of course.

It is unfair to let the vulnerable face an inevitably dire future. The Paris Climate Agreement itself acknowledges that the world’s larger industrialized countries have degraded the environmental stability and safety of others. As such, part of the agreement is a monetary pledge to help less developed countries with carbon reduction. While the agreement is not legally binding and there are no penalties for not following certain accords, it is this financial expenditure that was the basis of President Trump’s withdrawal. Some have even gone as far to say that the new studies support withdrawal from the agreement for not only USA but for other countries. Sceptics of the agreement say that the financial commitment is too great if the best case scenario is still a 2°C rise. It is true that a 2°C rise could still have drastic consequences, such as rising sea levels that could destroy coastal regions globally, creative droughts, and destabilize ecosystems.

By dismissing the Paris Agreement, the planet’s temperature could increase to 4.9°C or even more, which could have far worse impacts. Rising planet temperature does seem inevitable, but that is not an excuse to dismiss any attempt that seeks to minimize the harm done as futile. The Paris Agreement should not be deposed by those unwilling to accept its financial commitment; such an argument overlooks the humanitarian commitment we all have. Major contributors to carbon emissions, such as the USA and the UK, would be neglecting responsibility by withdrawing from the agreement. These industrialized and developed countries not only have contributed the most to carbon emissions, but they also hold the means and therefore the responsibility to make positive change. The evidence is clear that if things continue as they are people globally will suffer, and those who contribute the least to the problem will be disproportionately affected. Ignoring the research, the resources to alternate fuel sources and peaceful solutions such as the Paris Agreement is to knowingly let future generations perish. We would become bystanders to the suffering of the poor and vulnerable. Doing nothing would be doing them the greatest harm of all.

Related