After the hottest Northern Hemisphere summer on record, with record high temperatures around the world, Pope Francis recently exhorted the developed world to act faster on climate change. An overhaul of wealthy lifestyles is in order, he said, and technological fixes are not the answer.
As evidence of climate change itself becomes impossible to deny, governments and industry are responding with a new form of denial: the illusion that switching to "clean" energy (solar, wind, geothermal), "decarbonizing" the energy sector, and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 can "solve" the climate crisis. But warming of 2° C or more by 2050 is baked in from the carbon already in the atmosphere, and that doesn't account for what current and future emissions will add.
In fact, the push for clean energy will drive temperatures up, at least in the short term. Building renewables requires massive amounts of fossil fuels and environmentally harmful trace metal mining. New transmission infrastructure destroys more habitat. And as renewables come online and fossil fuels phase out, "aerosol dimming," which has been masking or offsetting warming, will cease. Sulfate aerosols from burning fossil fuels have a temporary cooling effect. When fossil fuel use stops, so will the cooling effect. The Earth will then warm faster than lowered CO2 emissions can cool it, causing a net temperature rise.
What all this adds up to is that our chances for avoiding catastrophic warming depend upon our ability to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere, in addition to stopping the emission of more. The solution proposed by our political leaders and amplified in the media is more technology. Following intensive lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, the Biden Administration authorized billions of dollars in new subsidies for the industry to adopt carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
Pope Francis rightly noted that such subsidies are a poor investment. A new study compares technologies for mechanical carbon capture and storage to natural carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies like reforestation, improved forest management, and encouraging kelp growth in oceans. It found mechanical methods fall short by every measure, and that restoring forests, grasslands, and wetlands and shifting to regenerative forms of agriculture remove more carbon than CCS and use less energy and land. Through protecting and enhancing natural carbon sinks, natural CDR strategies are not only cost-effective but have co-benefits like conserving biodiversity and improving water quality.
CCS is expensive, energy-intensive, and risky, and yet companies that adopt these technologies can claim "green" credentials even though their operations may destroy some of the natural processes that sequester carbon effectively. And to add a final insult to this litany of injuries, so far the most common use for carbon captured through mechanical means is to pump it underground—where it facilitates the extraction of more fossil fuels. And yet even the IPCC has bought into this scam.
Natural carbon capture through ecosystem restoration and better human choices can protect the climate better than technological fixes. For example, 40 percent of the planet's ice-free land is agricultural, and most of that is used to raise cattle and the crops to feed them. If everyone adopted a plant-based diet, agricultural land use would shrink 76 percent and carbon emissions from agriculture would be cut in half.
Today, we're going in the opposite direction. Global population grows by 80 million people each year, and global development is intensifying, fueling explosive growth of the global middle class, who consume more and more resources, including more meat. While we're unlikely to convince everyone to stop eating meat, stabilizing and reducing our population is achievable, and would have an even bigger climate impact.
This is where Pope Francis' leadership could help. The United Nations projects global population will peak at 10.4 billion by the 2080s. Yet while Pope Francis could encourage international investment in empowering women and family planning, instead he is criticizing childless couples and partnering with right-wing political leaders to encourage more childbirth. Nearly 260 million women worldwide who want to avoid pregnancy can't access family planning services. Providing full access to contraception to anyone who wants it, along with comprehensive efforts to advance reproductive autonomy across the world, could lower peak population by at least 3 billion.
World leaders must recognize that family planning policy is climate policy. The United States could singlehandedly restore full funding for family planning efforts with just a fraction of what it spends to subsidize the meat and dairy industries.
Technological climate fixes like CCS are favored by tech giants and big political donors, and attract government funding, but they won't save us from catastrophic warming. Lower-tech strategies like natural CDR and better human choices potentially could. But first, leaders and governments must develop the political will to embrace them.
Kirsten Stade is a conservation biologist and communications manager of the NGO Population Balance.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
