As I see it
P
Nathan Pitt, ©University of Cambridge
rofessor John Pyle CBE FRS recently retired as the 1920 Professor of Physical Chemistry, and was Head of the Department of Chemistry from 2014 to 2018. John is one of four international co-chairs of the Scientific Assessment Panel that advises parties to the Montreal Protocol. He continues to research ozone depleting substances, greenhouse gases and potential replacement fuels.
T
he state of science on climate change is very clear: if you put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you will raise global mean temperature. I think most scientists believe that we are unlikely to hit our target of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, which could have a devastating impact on life as we know it. On the other hand I think there was a certain momentum coming out of COP 26 (the UN Climate Change Conference held in Glasgow last year).
but now we must see if there will be real progress across the board, and build on it at COP27 in Egypt next year.
I believe one of the reasons the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances has been so successful is that an international agreement was reached early on. In hindsight the initial goals were relatively modest, but they were gradually strengthened over the years based on scientific input. It’s better to have a solution that – while not perfect – can be improved in time; that at least gives a groundwork for change.
In this country we could easily reduce energy use by making more efficient use of resources, for example in cutting down food waste and improving home insulation. We should be ensuring rigorous standards for new houses – why don’t all new houses have solar panels?
Another reason for the success of the Montreal Protocol is its Multilateral Fund, which helps developing countries comply with their obligations under the treaty. A lot of the discussion at COP26 was how richer nations can help poorer ones make the needed transitions – we must find a way of doing it for climate change or there will be no progress.
I share everyone’s frustration that the pace of change is too slow, but there’s an increasing recognition that we have a problem that needs to be sorted and that the sooner we can get a wide range of solutions in place the better. Governments have finally taken their blindfolds off; let’s hope they are not diverted yet again.
So overall I think COP26 was an advance in that (1) countries at last agreed in writing that coal is bad, and (2) there was a pledge to significantly reduce human-induced emissions of methane by the end of this decade. That there is an agreement to do something on methane, the second most important greenhouse gas, is a nudge in the right direction,
If we reduce emissions aggressively then, with a bit of luck, we can perhaps keep close to 1.5ºC. 5
Issue 64
Spring 2022