The National Centre for Climate Restoration is an independent entity that works to highlight new ways of looking at and solving #climate change related problems. This past May, the Australian think tank company, also referred to as Breakthrough, released a policy paper that highlights some shocking claims as to what our world may look like in the face of climate change by 2050. The report, titled “Existential Climate-Related Security Risk: A Scenario Approach,” has sparked numerous questions and concerns about whether or not we are doing enough to negate and prevent the negative effects of climate change.
The Authors Behind the Report
The first author of the policy paper is David Spratt. Spratt is the head researcher for The National Centre for Climate Restoration and co-author of the book “Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action,” which analyzes the gap between science and politics, as well as climate-change policy–making procedures. His co-author is Ian Dunlop. Dunlop worked previously in the oil, gas, and coal industries, serving as chairman and chief executive for various companies across Australia. Both authors are endorsed by Retired Admiral Chris Barrie, who currently serves as a member of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change.
For the Forward of the report, Barrie expresses his concerns related to climate change. He stated that the policy paper written by Spratt and Dunlop describes the “unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way.”
Inside the Report: What are the Claims?
The report claims that climate change is now considered an existential threat to human civilization. Thus, in order for us to avoid or reduce the impact, we must work towards building a zero-emissions, clean #energy industrial system as soon as possible. In the overview of the report, it is mentioned that a global, “war-time level of response” will be necessary in order to combine global resources, effectively combat the negative effects of climate change, and avoid the dismal timeline described in the report.
The timeline begins with the prediction that policy-makers between 2020 and 2030 will fail to act on the evidence laid out by the scientific communities, as well as the Paris Agreement. As a result, the carbon-dioxide levels will climb to 437 parts per million — the highest levels experienced on our planet in 20 million years. The total warming by this point as a result of climate change will reach 1.6° Celsius. Between 2030 and 2050, this warming could reach as high as 3° Celsius and, with a five-percent probability, as much as 3.5-4° Celsius.
By 2050, the report predicts that 35% of Earth’s global land area and 55% of the population will be subject to extreme, lethal heat conditions. By this point, both aridification, when a desert becomes increasingly dry, and desertification, when fertile land starts to dry out, will likely be severe.
The Future of Our Planet
The policy paper makes note of the fact that this proposed timeline is a just glimpse into, “a world of outright chaos,” and what may become of society if the hothouse earth scenario should ever come to pass. The report suggests that adopting and working from scenario approaches such as these may be the best way to prevent our global heat crisis from escalating.
So, while the proposed scenario may sound extreme, it may just be the jumping off point that researchers, policymakers, and scientists need in order to finally meet in the middle when it comes to #climate change policy. We cannot ignore the fact that climate change is making an impact on the planet, yet it is nearly impossible to tell just how negative of an impact climate change will actually have in the coming decades.
To avoid the extreme and deadly consequences of climate change, we must continue moving forward with the implementation of clean and #solar energy alternatives. Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and investing in other forms of sustainable energy will also need to be a priority for both lawmakers and citizens. We could risk stalling and simply hope the problem does not get worse, but according to Spratt and Dunlop, there may already be little room left for doubt and delay.