Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.
- Josh Billings
Dear Daily Disaster Diary,
Are you ready for the next COP/Circus show in Azerbaijan? The rallying cry, "The 1.5-degree limit must be upheld!" has echoed from climate activists for years.
This goal, enshrined in the Paris Agreement, represents the world's ambition to limit global temperature rise. The "1.5 degrees" has become shorthand for preventing the worst impacts of climate change.
Beyond this threshold, we face devastating floods, storms, extreme heatwaves, rampant hunger, and the spread of diseases. However, the 1.5-degree slogan inadequately conveys these dangers.
It offers a single number to describe climate change and assumes a level of understanding about climate dynamics that most people lack. A 1.5-degree increase in Norway is far different from 1.5 degrees in Namibia.
In short, this number fails to communicate the vastness of the problem and obscures how rapidly our window of opportunity is closing.
We need a more tangible, less abstract target for climate action that people can rally around. Sea level rise would be just that; we should set a firm upper limit on its increase.
This is a far more visible indicator of climate change than any temperature metric. It paints a vivid picture: abandoned cities, eroded coastlines, contaminated drinking water, sewage backups, destroyed habitats, and skyrocketing insurance claims.
The limit would be around half a meter (19,68 inches), roughly corresponding to the 1.5-degree target. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that even if temperatures stay at or below 1.5 degrees, global sea levels will rise between 30(11,81 inch) and 70(27,55 inch) centimeters by 2100.
If emissions remain unchecked, we could see up to two meters (78,74 inch) of rise.
This increase will intensify the risk of storm surges, push water further inland, and inundate communities that have never experienced flooding before.
Roads will become impassable, power and sewage plants will be submerged, communication systems will fail, and healthcare systems will collapse.
Over 10% of the global population lives in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to sea-level rise. Major global cities like Miami, Mumbai, New York, Shanghai, and Tokyo are at high risk.
In the United States, a study found that nearly half of coastal communities have failed to make any preparations. The result? Higher costs for taxpayers.
Retrofitting with levees, new bridges, or other flood control systems is typically far more expensive than building resilient infrastructure in the first place. A clear upper limit on sea-level rise would help the public visualize the looming losses.
Rising seas provide stark images of the threat: before-and-after photos of coastal erosion, flooding during fair weather, economic damages in coastal areas, or maps showing the expanding reach of storm surges—including the encroachment of the sea into inhabited areas.
Around the globe, nations have failed to adequately account for the long-term risks of climate change. This failure has led to behaviors that ignore the dangers of a higher waterline, such as continuing to develop flood-prone areas.
An official limit would encourage more informed decisions by identifying coastal infrastructure as immediately at risk.
Nations should take the lead in pushing for a cap on sea-level rise. Not least, adopting such a limit at this year’s climate conference would emphasize that the existential threat to small island states and thousands of coastal communities is being taken seriously.
We live in hope.
Sincerely,
A.G.
No comments:
Post a Comment