Paul Murphy warns of climate tipping points at COP25

I want to speak and focus on the question of climate change in the context of COP25 taking place in Madrid at the moment and in the context of the plan launched by the European Commission today to be discussed by the European Council over the coming days COP25 and the European Commission discussions take place in the shadow of quite an incredible article that appeared in the Nature journal a few weeks ago Nature as the Minister will know is one of the two most prestigious science journals that we have it isn't in its style to have scary headlines exaggerating things it's a science journal and in that context the article that was written by a whole number of scientists a common piece with a headline climate tipping points too risky to bet against is something that my opinion every everybody who was an interest in the environment should read and should act on the kind of fundamental point that they're making to quote is that if current national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are implemented and that's a big if they are likely to result in at least three degrees or Celsius of global warming this is despite the goal of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit warming to well below two degrees some economists assuming that climate tipping points are a very low probability even if they would be catastrophic have suggested that three degrees warming is optimal from a cost benefit perspective however if tipping points are looking more likely than the optimal policy recommendation of simple cost benefit climate economy models aligns with those of the recent IPCC report in other words warming must be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius this requires an emergency response and they go on to list a whole series of tipping points that they argue that we are very close to the rate of melting of ice indicating that at 2 degrees Celsius the region of the Arctic has a 10 to 35 percent chance of becoming largely ice-free in summer The tipping points which we have already reached of mass coral bleaching melting of ice, indicating that at two degrees Celsius, the region of the Arctic has a 10 to 35% chance of becoming largely ice-free in summer. The tipping points, which we've already reached, of mass coral bleaching, and a staggering 99% of tropical corals are projected to be lost if global average temperatures rise by two degrees Celsius, owing to interactions between warming, ocean acidification, and pollution, representing a profound loss of marine biodiversity and human livelihoods. They talk about deforestation and climate change destabilizing the Amazon, the world's largest rainforest, saying estimates of where an Amazon tipping point could lie range from 40% deforestation to just 20% forest cover loss, and at the moment about 17% has been lost since 1970. They go on to say the world's remaining emissions budget for a 50-50 chance of staying within 1.5 degrees warning is only about 500 gigatons, but permafrost emissions could take an estimated 20% off this budget. If forests are close to tipping points, Amazon dieback could release a further almost 20%, and boreal forests a further over 20%, and therefore you can see that all of the budget can very quickly be used up in these tipping points that we hit and the kind of feedback loops that respond. They conclude, in our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency. Both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute. We argue that the intervention time left to prevent tipping could already have shrunk towards zero, whereas the reaction time to achieve net zero emissions is 30 years at best. Hence, we might already have lost control of whether tipping happens. A saving grace is that the rate at which damage accumulates from tipping, and hence the risk posed, could still be under our control to some extent. The stability and resilience of our planet is in peril, international action, not just words must reflect this. And that obviously reflects, you know, a growing scientific consensus around the science, which there's a very clear scientific consensus around, but also a sense that scientists have a duty now to speak out and to demand action, because they can't simply just sit there and analyse the world as we head for really catastrophic climate change. But still the contrast between the science, the words, the demands of the protesters, the demands of people like Greta Thunberg to do what the science demands, and the reality of the action or inaction of politicians is just so striking. So COP25 is on at the moment in Madrid, obviously takes place in the context of the US is still present, but is preparing to withdraw. But what's being discussed is again, completely inadequate relative to that like scale of emergency and the task that is before us. That the focal point of the discussions are really around the question of carbon markets, accepting, that they do accept that there are problems in the carbon markets. For example, we're allowing a power plant in Germany to buy credits for the emission savings from a wind farm in India. But then their answer to fixing the problems that exist in carbon markets, and a focus on carbon markets, is simply to regulate those markets. As opposed to recognizing the reality that the market, you know, having a price on carbon and having a carbon market is not going to resolve the problem, is not going to get us the very rapid just transition towards a net zero carbon economy that we that we need. It's simply not going to do it. And instead it just have a situation where Ireland is paying over 100 million euros, has paid 121 million euros to date purchasing carbon credits in order to comply with its targets. Which means basically just it's polluting, it's creating greenhouse gas emissions, and then it's simply paying money to others to kind of justify that. Same is the case, I mean, the European Commission is now using the language of a Green New Deal, which I think is quite scandalous. It's really a greenwashing of their own policy, attempting to make it look far more radical than it is. In reality, now that they're talking about a 2050 net target for net emissions, net zero emissions, it's just completely inadequate. We have to be going in the developed world for net zero emissions by 2030. And the range of prescriptions that they have, all remain in the framework of the capitalist market, allowing these corporations to make the decisions on what they do with their production and their continued produce to maximise profit. And that's a recipe for just continuing to toboggan towards absolute climate disaster. I mean, the only way to transition in the rapid way that we're talking about, you're talking about the scale of a change in the nature of an economy that is unprecedented, and that has to happen in the global level, and it has to happen in an unprecedentedly short amount of time. The kind of comparisons you are talking about is like the US economy being retooled to war production in the run-up to World War II. And that wasn't done on the basis of incentivising the private market, it was done based on the state intervening. On a global basis, that's what has to be at the centre of a real radical Green New Deal, a Green New Deal with socialist policies. It's the idea that fundamentally we need economic planning that has the environment and ecology at its core, and that requires public ownership and democratic planning on as wide a basis as is possible. The last point I'll make is I think there are positives in this situation, which is the 500,000 people out on the streets in Madrid, Greta Thunberg leading them. She made very interesting comments the other day saying that the school student strikes about climate change have achieved nothing, because of the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have risen by I think 4% since 2015. But what I would say is that I think it has achieved something, it's risen awareness internationally, it has shifted consciousness on the question of the environment, it has put politicians under substantial pressure, but it does point to the need to do more. And in particular, in my opinion, one of the very positives of the school student strikes is the popularisation of the idea of strike, the idea of people withdrawing from school or college or from work. And I think it places on the agenda for the trade union movement the need to build for serious action on climate change, ultimately including strike action on climate change to demand action and to demand a just transition and protection of the interests of workers. It's very positive that Extinction Rebellion and Ireland have taken the initiative to try and bring together a broad coalition for a very substantial march, probably scheduled in March of 2020, calling for climate action now to bring together different sections of the trade union movement, civil society, etc. And I think that's an important step forward in terms of broadening out the environmental movement in order to make sure that we can build for the kind of action that we need to demand the change that we need, which isn't going to come just from asking nicely from the politicians that we have and the establishment politicians that we have in this country or those who are currently at COP25. Thank you, Geoffrey.