We need to reassess our climate goals

More on the 10 Key Findings from the 2023 IPCC report

On Friday I covered the disparity between the stated adaptation goals and the funding required to achieve those goals.

It’s no surprise a key take-away is more funding is needed. That has been the mantra since day one. Funding levels have never approached the necessary levels.

More disappointing: we’re dealing with a moving target and things will only get more costly over time.

Exactly how bad is the shortfall?

Before we get to that, here’s another unfortunate (but not surprising) finding of the IPCC report: public and private financing for fossil fuels far exceeds those directed toward climate mitigation and adaption.

Let me counter that somewhat depressing data point with some good news: annual public and private climate funding has risen by about 60% since the last IPCC report. That’s a big annual increase which means people are serious about solutions. The problem is that the increase is off a way too low base.

Now, for the really bad news: just to achieve the mitigation goals, climate financing would have to increase 300 to 600% by 2030. As you would expect, the gap is widest for developing countries as they can least afford to allocate resources.

Sector-wise, the shortfall is widest for agriculture, forestry and other land use where recent funding is 10 to 31 times below the required levels to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals.

Why do I “beat this dead horse”? Because the horse isn’t dead – yet. There are things that can be done to improve the situation short of providing the necessary funds – which isn’t going to happen. That’s what age (and experience) teaches you.

Like someone with an addiction, the first step is to admit you have a problem. In this case the problem is the belief that a) we’re going to miraculously achieve the 1.5 C degree target, and b) that funding will ever rise to the necessary levels quick enough.

So you say – what good does admitting that do?

Understanding what is possible, and what is likely to be available in the way of resources, allows for better planning and better use of the resources that are available. For example: perhaps we need to narrow down the myriad solutions being proposed and focus on only the ones with the highest potential for success. Or maybe it would light a fire under the world’s collective butts to go all-out to achieve higher levels of conservation.

The point is we need to maximize the resources we have and that means developing realistic budgets, and concentrating on what are projected to be the best solutions. And here’s another one that will undoubtedly get people’s danger up: trying to “force-feed” resources to achieve environmental justice goals. Doing so is counterproductive and will only prolong achieving the macro goals.

I will cover that specific topic in more detail in future posts.

Image by jcomp on Freepik