“We have again broken records in the concentrations of the main
greenhouse gases. We have also broken records in sea level rise and in many
parts of the world temperature records were broken”
Question: What might the consequences be if we carry on as
we are?
“We are on track towards 3-5 degrees C warming, a much drier
Africa, much drier Southern Asia, much drier USA and Mexico, which would have
negative impacts on the global food production capacity and living conditions
of human beings. And sea level rise estimated to be higher than we used to have
before because we have seen a boost in the melting of Greenland and Antarctic
glaciers.”
Question: So there is a need to go much further and to go
faster. Do you sympathise with those who’ve brought protests to the streets
around the world, from XR and Greta, with those who say we need to target a
much quicker reduction in greenhouse gases?
“I fully understand that, and that has been the tone of the
science community since 1979 when the WMO decided to established the IPCC to provide
scientific information for the decision makers. Of course this is not going to be the end of
the world which the young people are afraid of, but the future is going to be
either dark grey or light grey, and we favour the light grey future.”
Question: Do you think that sometimes there’s a danger that
what we hear from those street protests is over the top, goes too far?
“I fully agree. We are not going to endanger life on the
planet, but conditions will be more difficult for human wellbeing and especially
for the food production capacity of this planet, and many coastal cities and coastal
areas will suffer because of the sea level rise. Of course it would be best for
the welfare of mankind to implement the Paris
agreement and have the warming limited to 1.5-2 degrees centigrade.”
Question: In the past you’ve referred to people who take to
the streets as doomsters and extremists. What did you mean?
“When I was young, we were afraid of nuclear war, and we
were protesting on the streets and it’s maybe a little bit typical for the
young people that they are sometimes a little bit extreme.
I would like to calm down such sentiments, but from a
personal perspective it would be best to aim the Paris agreement limits, and we
have both the technological and economic means to reach those targets.”
Question: So the call to bring those limits closer, to do it
in 2025 or 2030, you regard as a mistake?
“We have to be realistic. We are not going to change our
behaviour tomorrow but it will happen in the coming decades. But if it doesn’t
happen in the coming decades, then we are on track towards 3-5 degrees of
warming. If you have a new car or new power plant, you don’t close it tomorrow,
but when you build the next one, it should be climate friendly.”
Question: But you pointed out earlier in the year that fossil
fuel use is actually increasing still. Doesn’t it take this language of
emergency, this greater ambition, to force countries to change their behaviour?
“That’s very much needed. We should really stop building new
coal-fired power plants, and we should convert our energy system to be more
based on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. So far growing energy demand worldwide
has been mostly (fulfilled) by using more coal, oil and gas which is not the
right way.”
--------------
Surely what Petteri is describing here IS endangering life on the planet? What else would a drier Africa, Southern Asia, USA and Mexico mean, with its impact on global food production, combined with rising sea levels?
Why is Petteri not terrified of how human (nuclear armed) societies might start to react once as these problems increase?
And why does he think that demand for fossil fuels will significantly fall in the coming decades, given that it's rising now and we're still building new coal-fired power plants and drilling for oil?
No comments:
Post a Comment