A document of great scientific and political importance has just been released. Entitled World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice, this new warning, written by William J. Ripple (Oregon State University) and co-authors (including Mauro Galetti, from Unesp), takes up and updates the “Warning of World Scientists to Humanity”, launched on the occasion of ECO-92 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, at MIT, and signed by more than 1.500 scientists, including most Nobel Prize winners. The 1992 document stated:
“Humans and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict damage, often irreversible, on the environment and critical natural resources. If not revised, many of our current practices seriously jeopardize the future we desire for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and could alter the biosphere to such an extent that it will become incapable of supporting life in our planet. ways in which we know it. (...) No more than a decade or a few remain before the chance to avoid current threats is lost, immeasurably diminishing humanity’s prospects.”
Also the 2017 document, for next publication in the magazine Bioscience, it is a "call to arms”, as it will be sent to “world leaders” with the massive endorsement of the international academic community. Signatures will be accepted until September 19, 2017 and scientists from more than 100 countries have already signed it. There are currently (August 13, 2017) around five thousand signatures, of which less than 700 come from Brazilian institutions, so this article has, first and foremost, the objective of publicizing this document, forwarded to me by rector of Unicamp. Interested colleagues can find the text and other information at this address: scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
On the 25th anniversary of the epochal document from the Union of Concerned Scientists, William Ripple and colleagues write that “since 1992, with the exception of the stabilization of the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress to generally resolve anticipated environmental challenges and, alarmingly, many of them are in a much worse situation”, as shown in figure 1, which quantifies the widespread deterioration after 1992, with the exception of the ozone layer in the stratosphere (a):
B. water resources (- 26,1%)
w. marine fish (- 6,4%)
d. number of dead zones at sea (+ 75,3%)
It is. forests in billions of hectares (- 2,8%)
f. abundance of vertebrates, since 1970 (- 28,9%)
g. CO emissions2 in Gt of carbon per year (+ 62,1%)
H. change in temperature (+ 167,6%)
i. human and ruminant population (+ 35,5% and + 20,5% respectively)
Three years to safeguard our climate
A second recent document, complementary to this Warning, was published on the opening pages of the June 29 edition of the magazine Nature. Its title says what it's coming to: Three years to safeguard our climate. It is signed by Christiana Figueres, a key figure in the Paris Agreement, and by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Gail Whiteman, Johan Rockström, Anthony Hobley and Stefan Rahmstorf, five of today's most influential scientists in the various areas of research on the Earth system.. They highlight the imminent collapse of ecosystems and the inexorability of its social impacts:
“Following global warming of about 1ºC caused by human activity, the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass at an increasing rate. Summer ice is disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs are dying – entire ecosystems are beginning to collapse. The social impacts caused by climate change from intensified heat waves, droughts and rising sea levels are inexorable and affect the poorest and weakest first.”
To maintain a real chance that global warming will not exceed the threshold considered “dangerous” (supposedly above the range 1,5º C to 2º C by 2100, in relation to the average of the pre-industrial period), we can also emit between 150 Gt a 1.050 Gt of CO2 (Gt = gigaton or billion tons), with this huge variation in estimates reflecting different methods of calculation based on the most recent data. “At the current rate of [anthropogenic] emissions of 41 Gt of CO2”, the authors continue, “the lower limit of this range [150 Gt] will be crossed in four years, and its midpoint of 600 Gt will be exceeded in 15 years”. Taking into account only atmospheric CO emissions2, the authors show how drastic the curves for reducing these anthropogenic emissions to zero will be, depending on when we start to reduce them (2016, 2020 or 2025), as shown in figure 2
The article does not include in its calculations emissions of other greenhouse gases, mainly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which, if expressed in terms of the global warming potential of CO2 (CO2-equivalent), already in 2012 took us to 53,5 Gt of CO2-eq, according to data reported by the World Bank, as shown in figure 3
We are releasing 54 Gt of CO into the atmosphere annually2-eq. At this rate, instead of four years, we will cross the lower limit (150 Gt) of CO emissions2-eq which would imply entering this climate dangerous range in two and a half years and the average limit of 600 Gt of CO2-eq in 2028.
Who is the “humanity” to whom these warnings are aimed?
The 1992 Warning to Humanity recognized that “developed nations are the biggest polluters in the world today”. The term “humanity” imposes, in fact, precision. The main recipients of these scientists' warnings are, today, the ten responsible for almost three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions: China, the USA and the European Union, India, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada and Mexico, as 100 other countries emit only 3,5% of these gases. But regardless of the country, it is high-income groups that must be blamed for global warming, as the richest 30% of the planet are the cause of 79% of anthropogenic CO emissions.2, while the poorest 50% emit only 10%, as shown in figure 4.
The extreme gravity of the current situation
Six main characteristics define the current situation of our societies:
1. Scale ever greater environmental imbalances caused by our globalized and compulsively expansive economy;
2. Aceleração the speed of worsening of these imbalances and intensification of their feedback mechanisms;
3. Irreversibility sea level rise of 50 cm to 2 meters by 2100, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA);
4. Inevitability already in 2000 of an inertial warming of 0,6º C (0,3º C to 0,9º C) in 2090-2099 in relation to 1980-1999, according to the fourth assessment of the IPCC (2007) [1].
5. Imminence deadlines to avoid exceeding other critical points (deforestation and degradation of tropical forests due to greater droughts, engendering dieback, for example), with an increasing probability of the worst-case scenarios from the projections of the IPCC and other scientific organizations occurring in the second half of the century, without excluding scenarios even worse than those predicted;
6. Ability of the dominant economic and ideological spectrum to undermine the credibility of the scientific consensus with false controversies, deceive us with promises of technological “silver bullets” and minimize the social impact of successive scientific warnings about the extreme gravity of ongoing socio-environmental crises, thus delaying the construction of efficient political responses to these crises.
The need for greater involvement of the University
These six points provide, in summary, the real and unvarnished portrait of our societies in 2017. But not yet their destiny. The University has the power and duty to be involved, as a supporting force, in the collective work of changing – as long as possible – the features of this portrait. Safeguarding the public University means, today, going from defensive to offensive, that is, proclaiming our presence at the great crossroads of the present and our ethical and scientific commitment to preparing our students for the dark future that they, above all, will have to face. The first and most difficult effort required to go on the offensive is to recognize the extreme gravity of the current situation. A Warning 2017 describes it well when stating: “To prevent widespread poverty and catastrophic loss of biodiversity, humanity must practice a more sustainable alternative than business as usual. (...) It will soon be too late to deviate from our path of failure, and time is running out.”
This effort of scientific humility that consists of admitting the extreme gravity of an adverse situation created by man and on the point of escaping his control is the only rational reaction to this situation. If this first step is taken, it will pave the way for the following. But until we realize that ours is a time limit, unparalleled in history, that there is a real, growing and imminent risk of precariousness, at the limit, of making our societies unviable and of the extinction of millions of species (many of which we depend on). crucially), we will continue to allow ourselves to not give absolute priority to the environmental agenda of our time. Without a deep understanding of what is at stake, inertia or other interests will prevail, as the sacrifices required now are those of a war effort and will not be understood and accepted by society without the commitment of everyone, and not least the University.
It is not, of course, up to the University, but to organized civil society to stipulate the strategy to be followed. However, it is necessary to overcome, at least within the walls, the still deep-rooted belief that socio-environmental crises can be significantly mitigated: (1) by the “logic” of markets dominated by the corporate oligarchy; (2) the Paris Agreement, whose commitments, admittedly insufficient, are already being breached; (3) through life-saving technologies and reckless technological experiments on a planetary scale and (4) through GDP growth, as economic growth is permissible, and even essential, only where it implies a reduction in environmental impact, which presupposes education, public transport, agriculture organic and sustainable, preventive medicine, basic sanitation and eradication of poverty.
The second “Warning from World Scientists to Humanity” urges society to adopt the following measures: increase natural reserves, end defaunation and restore destroyed or degraded habitats, eliminate food waste, transition to a meat-free diet, promote free family planning, empower women, channel resources financial resources for environmentally positive investments, such as energy with a lower environmental impact. The capitalist legal order, founded on the right to private control of strategic investments, is incompatible with the adoption of this agenda, as it presupposes a socio-environmental redefinition of the sense of economic activity and the democratic control of these investments. But, even within the limiting frameworks of this legal order, it is possible to move in the right direction if the University throws itself body and soul into the work of researching, educating and making people understand the extreme importance of these measures. Specifically, colleagues from various institutes, centers and laboratories have been discussing and proposing eight immediate, feasible and of immense interest initiatives:
(1) make greater efforts to reduce the University's environmental impact, including facilitating the option of a meat-free diet in campus restaurants;
(2) observe legislation on animal rights and promote them in vivariums and throughout society;
(3) stimulate interdisciplinary research (including proposing specific financing to development agencies) aimed at understanding the causes, dynamics and effects of socio-environmental crises, as well as the possibilities for mitigation and adaptation;
(4) lead conceptual and technological proposals for the eradication of deforestation, harmful urbanization, the use of fossil energy, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, polymers and other substances harmful to the environment and organisms;
(5) integrate mandatory basic training for students and optional training for employees into curricula, enabling them to understand growing environmental threats and better position themselves in relation to them;
(6) offer extension and distance education courses on this topic;
(7) create a permanent forum for the exchange of information, ideas and experiences (the rector of Unicamp established, for this purpose, the website Chrysalis), and strengthen the network of interactions with other Universities, in Brazil and abroad in the socio-environmental area;
(8) interact more effectively with social sectors, organizations and initiatives favorable to minimizing environmental impact, such as the Alternative World Water Forum (FAMA), given that water scarcity, pollution and privatization are among the biggest immediate threats to the country.
[1] See Climate change commitment: IPCC AR4 - Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, 10.7 Long Term Climate Change and Commitment: “The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (…) is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. (…) The likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C.
