How do we reach the Paris Long Term Goal through equity, rights and systems change in the land sector and beyond without relying on geoengineering and negative emissions technologies?
Kevin Anderson, from Manchester and Uppsala Universities set the scene. He gave a brief overview of the history of the conversation on climate change and his opinion on where we are and where we need to go.
Where we are?
“We are currently in our 28th year of failure”. The first IPCC report was released in 1990, and we are now in 2018 with no sign of significant change on the horizon.
“Equity is at the heart of this," continued Anderson. "From a recent Oxfam report, it is clear that CO2 emissions are dominated by the few. Fifty per cent of global CO2 is from just 10 per cent of the population. Seventy per cent by only 20 per cent. These are the people we need to tailor action to.
"The issue is that they are the ones sitting in the negotiation rooms and they are untouchable. Take this room here at COP24. We are burning coal to keep the lights on in this room when it is sunny outside – we invented windows years ago…”
Anderson went on to say that we need a World War Two level of industrial renovation but not for tanks, for wind turbines and other green technologies.
Winning slowly is the same as losing outright – Alex Steffen 2017
There was a complaint voiced that the current UNFCCC COP24 negotiations are not discussing driving emissions away from the high emitters – as the negotiation rooms are full of the high emitters and they have no interest in that.
![]()
Anderson elaborated on a three-phase strategy to address co2 emissions, budgets and inequality. First off in the immediate and near term we need profound changes in the energy behaviours and practices of high-energy users. Then, in the near to medium term we need very stringent energy efficiency standards in all major end-use equipment. Finally, in the medium to long term Marshall style construction of zero CO2 energy supply and major electrification.“With a guaranteed defeat, we need to start thinking radically”, concluded Andersson. He then highlighted how the future belonged to the youth and those like Greta Thunberg – who at 15 years old – was holding up a mirror to our mitigation failures.
Biodiversity is important
Next to speak was Kelsey Perlman from the NGO Fern. Perlman stated that Biodiversity is central to life on earth and the more ecosystems are decreased the more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
“We need to decrease emissions from deforestation an forest degradation to limit global warming,” continued Perlman.
Forests are a key solution to stabilising global temperatures but are increasingly under threat. Whether we stay at 1.5°C or up to 2°C degrees – between 1.5 and 2 there are varying and drastic effects on biodiversity.
Another way?
Indigenous and community lands, which tend to be forests, store a massive amount of carbon. Land tenure rights aren’t secured around the globe however and so protecting these people and their land rights from big corporations is one way that will actually help.
Once these lands are protected, then you can start talking about additional sequestration. Make no mistake over the course of this century we need 8.5 GT of CO2 per year by 2050 to be sequestered.
Livestock sector – a key component in agricultural emissions
Finally, Shefali Sharma from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Europe talked about the livestock sector.
We know we need to drastically reduce emissions across all sectors. However, if all sectors but agriculture reduced as much as they need to instantly, by 2050 the agriculture sector would be using 81 per cent of our global carbon budget. As a sector, it clearly isn't going the right way.
“The top 20 meat and dairy companies emit more CO2 than Germany. We cannot hide behind nutrition and food security – I know there are hungry people who need food but that isn’t a justification for the damage being caused.”
Climate justice
“You look around this conference – there are side events focusing on cutting Kenyan cattle emissions – on the rationale that they have low producing cows so they are inefficient. This is appalling!” said Sharma. The emissions from Kenyan cattle are a proverbial drop in the ocean compared to industrial livestock.
Sharma also discussed the issue of accountability and how the accountability of the sector has a long way to go. External calculations can be up to 2000 per cent higher than the emissions that the companies report. Clearly there is work to be done there.
Climate change will not be linear in agriculture. Smallholder communities will be devastated by climate change and it will hit them first. There is no genetic diversity in industrial agriculture, and because of this, it is extremely vulnerable. It is a myth that industrial agriculture will feed the world in the future, it may not survive the present.
Climate change, poverty, hunger, collapse of biodiversity – all man made
Francois Delvaux from CIDSE then said, “We cannot address climate change in silos. The good news is that transformative alternatives exist. These alternatives are backed by science and communities. The bad news is that they are transformative. They threaten the status quo, and such a massive shift goes against powerful interests [energy, industrial agriculture]and goes against a locked in mindset.”
Kevin Anderson, from Manchester and Uppsala Universities set the scene. He gave a brief overview of the history of the conversation on climate change and his opinion on where we are and where we need to go.
Where we are?
“We are currently in our 28th year of failure”. The first IPCC report was released in 1990, and we are now in 2018 with no sign of significant change on the horizon.
“Equity is at the heart of this," continued Anderson. "From a recent Oxfam report, it is clear that CO2 emissions are dominated by the few. Fifty per cent of global CO2 is from just 10 per cent of the population. Seventy per cent by only 20 per cent. These are the people we need to tailor action to.
"The issue is that they are the ones sitting in the negotiation rooms and they are untouchable. Take this room here at COP24. We are burning coal to keep the lights on in this room when it is sunny outside – we invented windows years ago…”
Anderson went on to say that we need a World War Two level of industrial renovation but not for tanks, for wind turbines and other green technologies.
Winning slowly is the same as losing outright – Alex Steffen 2017
There was a complaint voiced that the current UNFCCC COP24 negotiations are not discussing driving emissions away from the high emitters – as the negotiation rooms are full of the high emitters and they have no interest in that.
Anderson elaborated on a three-phase strategy to address co2 emissions, budgets and inequality. First off in the immediate and near term we need profound changes in the energy behaviours and practices of high-energy users. Then, in the near to medium term we need very stringent energy efficiency standards in all major end-use equipment. Finally, in the medium to long term Marshall style construction of zero CO2 energy supply and major electrification.“With a guaranteed defeat, we need to start thinking radically”, concluded Andersson. He then highlighted how the future belonged to the youth and those like Greta Thunberg – who at 15 years old – was holding up a mirror to our mitigation failures.
Biodiversity is important
Next to speak was Kelsey Perlman from the NGO Fern. Perlman stated that Biodiversity is central to life on earth and the more ecosystems are decreased the more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
“We need to decrease emissions from deforestation an forest degradation to limit global warming,” continued Perlman.
Forests are a key solution to stabilising global temperatures but are increasingly under threat. Whether we stay at 1.5°C or up to 2°C degrees – between 1.5 and 2 there are varying and drastic effects on biodiversity.
Another way?
Indigenous and community lands, which tend to be forests, store a massive amount of carbon. Land tenure rights aren’t secured around the globe however and so protecting these people and their land rights from big corporations is one way that will actually help.
Once these lands are protected, then you can start talking about additional sequestration. Make no mistake over the course of this century we need 8.5 GT of CO2 per year by 2050 to be sequestered.
Livestock sector – a key component in agricultural emissions
Finally, Shefali Sharma from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Europe talked about the livestock sector.
We know we need to drastically reduce emissions across all sectors. However, if all sectors but agriculture reduced as much as they need to instantly, by 2050 the agriculture sector would be using 81 per cent of our global carbon budget. As a sector, it clearly isn't going the right way.
“The top 20 meat and dairy companies emit more CO2 than Germany. We cannot hide behind nutrition and food security – I know there are hungry people who need food but that isn’t a justification for the damage being caused.”
Climate justice
“You look around this conference – there are side events focusing on cutting Kenyan cattle emissions – on the rationale that they have low producing cows so they are inefficient. This is appalling!” said Sharma. The emissions from Kenyan cattle are a proverbial drop in the ocean compared to industrial livestock.
Sharma also discussed the issue of accountability and how the accountability of the sector has a long way to go. External calculations can be up to 2000 per cent higher than the emissions that the companies report. Clearly there is work to be done there.
Climate change will not be linear in agriculture. Smallholder communities will be devastated by climate change and it will hit them first. There is no genetic diversity in industrial agriculture, and because of this, it is extremely vulnerable. It is a myth that industrial agriculture will feed the world in the future, it may not survive the present.
Climate change, poverty, hunger, collapse of biodiversity – all man made
Francois Delvaux from CIDSE then said, “We cannot address climate change in silos. The good news is that transformative alternatives exist. These alternatives are backed by science and communities. The bad news is that they are transformative. They threaten the status quo, and such a massive shift goes against powerful interests [energy, industrial agriculture]and goes against a locked in mindset.”