Former U.S. Secretary of Energy gives climate talk at UW-Madison

By Peter Waples SCIENCE WRITER

ing sea levels, extreme weather, ecosystem loss, food insecurity and more.

These consequences are caused by individual and collective actions, and do not have equal impacts. At risk regions with larger climate exposures and smaller populations, such as small islands and Arctic communities, are being disproportionately displaced.

2. Scientists predict we will surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming in the 21st century, a crucial turning point in minimizing harm.

While strides in sustainability have been made worldwide, there are still gaps between the IPCC’s calls to action and what we’ve done so far. This is caused by a multitude of reasons, from lack of policy to barriered access to environmentally conscious technology in developing countries.

No matter the causes, the consequences of reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming are clear. Negative impacts like habitat loss and human health hazards will compound and become widespread.

It is more likely than not that our planet will cross this temperature threshold in the near future, making feared natural disasters a frequent reality.

3. Greenhouse gases are arguably the biggest danger and have already caused inevitable, permanent damage.

Global greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of rising temperatures, and humans can only make so many adaptations. Communities with direct ties to water are especially vulnerable to resource depletion, which will permanently change their lives and the natural environment they rely on.

The report cites “warmwater coral reefs, coastal wetlands, rainforests, polar and mountain ecosystems will have reached or surpassed hard adaptation limits,” meaning human survival strategies will lose effectiveness with every degree of warming.

However, it is believed if humans exceed the 1.5 warming level warning and inflict these damages, committing to negative carbon emissions, also known as carbon removal, can lessen dangers.

4. Climate crisis mitigation requires action across all sectors and systems, but spe- cifically in finance, technology and international spheres.

Scientists featured in the Synthesis Report have a unified description for necessary action: deep and rapid. If all sectors make recommended IPCC changes, they would not only protect our planet but also receive fringe benefits like increased quality of life.

Areas with the most powerful potential include finance and technology. The Synthesis Report believes increasing “international cooperation” for these goals is possible if governments prioritize equal financial flows and innovative technology.

5. Environmental justice and multivocal governance is vital for e ective change.

Climate change is a global problem that requires diverse solutions. Action is necessary on local, regional, national and international scales. The IPCC recognizes that climate resilience will be contingent on “drawing on diverse knowledge and cultural values, meaningful participation and inclusive engagement processes.”

So, as a University of Wisconsin-Madison student, how can you use this information to catalyze change? While you may not have access to write policy and restructure government, your voice still matters. Be sure to vote in local and national elections for candidates fighting for climate justice.

Furthermore, empower voices outside of governmental spheres. Utilize the environmental allies in your classrooms, occupying local organizations and on your social media. The easiest change to make is the one that starts in your backyard.

Lastly, take a breath. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by climate warnings and statistics, which can facilitate a doomsday mentality. While there is a need for urgency, there is also a need for hope.

In the words of IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee, “transformational changes are more likely to succeed where there is trust, where everyone works together to prioritize risk reduction, and where benefits and burdens are shared equitably.”

Trust in your community. Be a part of positive change.

Throughout the modern age, the world has experienced explosive population growth — a number that will continue to grow larger and faster. Other metrics have consequently seen explosions of their own. Agricultural science and policy have pushed crop yields to all time highs; the amount of energy produced and consumed in the past 70 years nearly doubles that of the previous 11,000 years; and, as a result, humanity has created enough of a footprint from released pollutants and greenhouse-gasses for scientists to consider marking a new geological epoch.

Dr. Steven Chu, a current professor of physics at Stanford University, addressed these evolving trends in a lecture delivered through the University of WisconsinMadison’s Physics Department this February. Chu — a partial recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics — served as the Secretary of Energy under the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013.

During his time in o ce, Chu worked to maintain awareness and spur action around how the U.S. energy sector can be and needs to be adapted in the face of a warming global climate. Chu previously called for increased data collection and regulation on the expansion of fossil fuel technology, especially natural gas and fracking.

More recently — as discussed in Chu’s February lecture — he widened his topics of interest. In addition to energy issues, Chu now connects issues such as water availability and agriculture sustainability to the greater movement of reducing humanity’s impact on our climate.

Chu sets the stage by highlighting that a transition to a more sustainable future will not be without its own challenges. Pointing to the decreasing costs in renewable technologies, for instance, Chu cautioned that when including the peripheral needs of renewable technology — such as energy storage, resource acquisition and infrastructure — the overall cost will most likely still need to “reduce by half” before meaningful widespread adoption.

Despite this, Chu referred to several achievable goals that can ease an interim transition. He identified the need to reinvest in nuclear fission to make reactor construction “on budget and on time.” Additionally, he pointed to the role hydrogen can play in decarbonizing the many greenhouse gas-emitting industrial processes in the United States.

While progress in energy production and industrial e ciency are important first steps in fighting climate change, Chu argued decarbonization e orts need to go a lot further. For instance, technologies such as plastic and practices including planned obsolescence and general mismanagement of material are important targets for improvement, according to Chu.

“The goal is to reuse, not recycle,” said Chu.

One of the most unconventional changes Chu argued for at the talk is what he calls a “fourth agricultural revolution.”

Historically, through social structure reworks and scientific enhancements, humanity has made great strides in maximizing agricultural yields. However, these benefits come at a cost.

“We over fertilize,” said Chu. Many nitrogen-based fertilizers release nitrous oxide if they go unused by plants. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a greenhouse gas three hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide, leading to its emissions having a relatively outsized e ect on global warming. Currently, Chu suggests, “we’re lucky” if a plant uses half of its fertilizer and that future fertilizing techniques will need to cut back on this waste.

To improve farming sustainability, Chu pointed to technologies like synthetic biology and carbon capture techniques. Seeding farm plots with nitrogen-fixing bacteria — little microbes that cling to the roots of plants — could drastically reduce emissions and cut back on the total consumption of fertilizer, all while still providing the high agricultural yields a growing population demands, he said.

The fight against climate change must be a concerted one, Chu argued. Many seemingly unrelated sectors need systematic change to reduce and eventually recapture greenhouse gas emissions, Chu noted.