Vaughan Gunson: If world leaders continue on this path, then the worst-case scenarios for climate change are inevitable

Renewables such as wind and solar currently only account for 3.3 per cent of the world's energy.

A_181120WCBRCWin09 Renewables such as wind and solar currently only account for 3.3 per cent of the world's energy.

The Northern Advocate recently questioned developer Barry Trass about the site of the proposed Oruku Landing being in a tsunami evacuation zone. He was apparently unaware of this. In response, though, Trass had this to say: "You can't just stop development and wait for a tsunami."
This clever one-liner encapsulates the attitude of some developers. The best nature can throw at us shouldn't stand in the way of a project like Oruku Landing going ahead.
Trass's comment caught my attention because it's so timely - it's the kind of thing one of the politicians, billionaires or financiers at the recently concluded United Nations climate summit in Scotland could have said.
"We can't just stop development because of climate change" could have come from the mouth of British prime minister Boris Johnson. Or any number of attendees.
Sure, there were climate change activists, indigenous peoples and scientists in Glasgow, but they were shut out of the decision-making between powerful countries, banks and major industries.

The big players, who had the most influence on the text of the Climate Pact, weren't going to agree to anything that held back the economy.
And yet, all the evidence points to an unbreakable chain that links economic growth with increasing carbon emissions.
Development requires extra energy, extra resources, ever more people.
Despite the gains made by renewables — wind and solar power have become cheaper —this new energy is not coming online at a sufficient pace and scale to significantly dent global emissions.

Sir David Attenborough delivers a speech at the opening ceremony of the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 in Glasgow. Photo / AP

The decline in emissions that occurred in 2020 is down to the disruption of Covid and its economic impact. Showing the link between emissions and economic output holds true.

The demands of a growing economy require more energy than the year previously, and so on. Renewables, which have their own backstory of pollution, scarcity and energy consumption, are being asked to increase their energy contribution faster than the extra energy demands of a growing economy.

Yet wind and solar currently only account for 3.3 per cent of the world's energy. That means an enormous amount of energy is still required from fossil fuels. Measured across the globe, demand is increasing, not falling.

The insatiable needs of expanding economies make phasing out coal, gas and oil extremely difficult. In fact, impossible.

For example, Australia — despite international condemnation — is refusing to roll back its coal industry, which it relies on for over half its electricity.

To keep the economy growing, Australia will need more energy next year than in 2021. So not burning coal isn't an option.

Activists, scientists and indigenous people have been highly critical, even despondent, about the outcome of the UN climate summit.

They know that as long as the global economy keeps growing and the developers hold sway, the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere will ensure global temperatures continue to rise.

The pledges to cut emissions that were made in Glasgow are widely recognised as insufficient to keep the global temperature increase to below two degrees. And even then, it's probable that many countries won't follow through. Or accountancy tricks and offsets will be used to exaggerate a country's commitment to reducing emissions.

The New Zealand government pledged to reduce net emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. The fine print says it will do so largely by purchasing carbon credits overseas.

There are big question marks over the legitimacy of those credits and whether it leads to real and lasting reductions in global emissions.

The Government's calculation is that buying overseas credits will have less impact on the economy than forcing actual emissions cuts. By having fewer dairy farms, less freight on our roads, fewer cars and reduced travel. Or less new construction of buildings, bridges, roads and other infrastructure.

However the Government spins it, we won't be doing our share, relying instead on other countries to go far and beyond. That's wishful thinking, as every other government in the world is committed to growing their economies.

If the world's leaders continue to take this path, then the worst-case scenarios for climate change are inevitable.

We can have more and more development — for now — or we can slash emissions to prevent runaway global warming and the devastation that will bring. We can't do both.

I just wish we had politicians who would at least admit this. It's the obscuring, the accountancy tricks, the posturing, the promises made for the future, the childish indulgence that we think we can have it both ways that I find so frustrating. Coming even from the leaders of our own Green Party.

We may have got somewhere in admitting the truth of how serious the threat of climate change is, but we're mostly in denial about what we need to do — and crucially give up —to stop the tsunami that's building.