Joeri's optimistic view of how and why we should aim for 1.5 degrees Celsius

Joeri Rogelj - a climate
change optimist.

Joeri Rogelj is acutely aware of climate science. He is also an optimist.

The research scholar at the Energy Program of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), where he works on connecting insights from geoscience with energy modelling and climate policy spoke yesterday in Melbourne.

His optimism was obvious when the spoke to about 50 people at the Carlton Connect Initiative’s LAB-14 in Swanston St.

That optimism became clear when he spoke about the December climate negotiations, about which he was clearly excited and would play a key role in ensuring the world’s increasing global temperatures would stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Mr Rogelj presented a barrage of figures to support his arguments, including a chart the illustrated that humanity was frighteningly close to having already exhausted its carbon budget that would ensure the world’s temperature remained below the 1.5C figure, which appeared to contradict much of what he was saying.

Many of the scenarios Mr Rogelj presented, he explained, meant actively removing C0² from the atmosphere to reach zero net emissions.

Although he never specifically explained how the draw-down of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would work, Mr Rogelj did talk at some length about Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) , not admitting, though, that it is not feasible in a world with a booming population that needs every square metre of tillable land for food  production.

Mr Rogelj talked about the geophysical constraints facing humanity, constraints which he said: “Were non-negotiable”.

His thesis implied many things and assumed the uptake of a range of ideas that would decarbonize society, among them that we understood and were able to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, that humanity would slow, or even stop its carbon dioxide emissions immediately and that the promises made in Paris would be fulfilled completely.

Also, it was assumed, or argued, that the world would need to look serious at emissions from buildings, which in 2010 was something like 3.5 gigatonnes and this, he said needed to be reduced by 80 percent by mid-century.

He added, though, the given the “locked-in” effect of buildings this was: “A very big challenge.” “We need very stringent building codes,” he said.

Deputy CEO of The
 Climate Institute,
Ewin Jackson.

Deputy CEO of The Climate Institute, Ewin Jackson, spoke briefly and said that probably the most important element of the Paris agreements was the direction that those who have signed up to what was decided will have their targets reviewed every five years and might be subject to a “ratchet” process.

That ratchet process, he suggested, had brought many businesses back to the table as they saw that in having countries coming back to have their progress reevaluated would create an important political process and pressure.

“This has said to business,” he said, “this is a long-term change and it’s not a matter of if, but when.”

Mr Jackson was pessimistic about Australia reaching it emission goals and lamented the difficulties associated with having companies consider the two-degree target and now be asking them to aim at 1.5 degrees.

He said there continues to be a great misunderstanding about the risk associated with even two degrees of warming and ask most CEOs if they have assessed the implications of climate change for the financial system they’ll give you a blank look.

“We still have a lot of work to do regardless of whether we are talking 1.5 or two degrees,” he said.

Mr Jackson praised the organizers for putting on yesterday’s forum as such events helped ease the misunderstandings about climate change that proliferate in the community.