According to a study released in September and published in the journal Science, the 1.1°C of global warming brought on by human activity to date may have already caused the globe to cross over five hazardous tipping points. Around the world, there are ever louder calls for creating and spreading technologies to support climate change action.

Technology has evolved into a means of ensuring our species’ survival, yet the level of techno-determinism present in the plan to stop climate change is worrisome. Technology cannot solve the problem on its own; society must be transformed, and a zero-emission plan must be implemented.

Technology innovation has the benefit of history on its side. For instance, Norman Borlaug launched the Green Revolution, which improved yields and fed billions of people. But we could use a few million climate refugees.

Technological optimism

The COP26 in Glasgow also fueled technological optimism. It was noted that every technological solution suggested there depended on just three resources: biomass, carbon capture and storage (CCS), or non-emitting electricity produced by hydropower, renewable energy sources, or nuclear fission. The proposals outlined at COP26 will not be able to meet all of the demand for those resources by 2050.

Goals not met: Each person currently has 4 kWh of electricity per day. However, the COP26 proposals provide for 32 (range 16-48). Our present CCS per person annual consumption is 6kg, but the COP26 plans call for 3,600kg (range 1,400-5,700). We consume 100kg of plant-based food annually per person, but 200kg of additional harvest is needed in order to produce enough bio-kerosene to fly at the current rate. There is no chance that we will have these in sufficient quantities to meet the demands of the plans presented at COP26.

Source: Climate Selectra

The world is not prepared to change the energy system. Between 2000 and 2050, the world will require enough renewable energy capacity to power one nuclear plant every day to avert catastrophic climate change, according to Ken Caldeira’s 2003 research at the Carnegie Institution. According to MIT Technology Review, if things continue as they are, it will take the world close to 400 years to overhaul its energy system.

Need for Climatic technological Investment

The best carbon removal tools, such as forests and forest economies, are left on the ideological outside of climate dialogue in tech-centric mitigation discussions. The same amount of money must be invested in conservation as in the transfer of cutting-edge technology in order to combat climate change.

Vulgar nature of pledge – At COP26, there was a climate commitment to stop deforestation, but the nature of the pledge was ambiguous. Monoculture farming is a simple way for nations to try to meet their “net zero deforestation targets.” However, this won’t be much use because researchers found that woods that have been conserved naturally are 40% more effective than those that have been planted.

Our climate dilemma is linked to other complicated problems.

This calls for us to insist on comprehensive, linked climate solutions. Here, forests also sparkle. The confluence of the biodiversity issue with the climate change crisis is the best example of this. At this intersection are forests, which are the habitat of 80% of terrestrial fauna.

Source: You Matter

Forest Conservation to Reduce Emissions: Each year, forests absorb a net of 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2. According to a recent study, their biophysical characteristics tend to cause an additional 0.5% cooling of the earth. Up to 37% of the emissions reductions required to combat climate change can be met by forest protection and other natural alternatives. According to the Dasgupta Review-Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity, mangroves and salt marshes are green infrastructure that is 2–5 times more affordable than grey infrastructure (breakwaters).

Conserving natural sinks

Source: Apparel Magazine

IPCC estimates that land is a major CO2 sink. Growing data suggests that maintaining natural sinks, strengthening biodiversity preservation, and recovering ecosystems might deliver a considerable fraction of the required reductions.

Preserving earth’s cyclical processes by safeguarding terrestrial ecosystems, natural sinks, and revolutionary farming methods is a more egalitarian and cost-effective strategy to tackle the climate catastrophe than what is being done presently. The actual problem is that human consumption and activities have exceeded the planet’s regenerative potential. Technology can only help us build a sustainable, regenerative, and equitable society.