We are already on the way to a new climate normal. Whether that normal is one decided by us or for us is yet to be determined. We’re experiencing longer and hotter summers, and more extreme and frequent natural disasters.[i] Air pollution is killing 7 million annually.[ii] February 2016 was the hottest month on record globally since records began.[iii] We’re no longer talking about the distant future. We are talking about now, and how our actions will affect current and future generations.

Over the last century and a half, we have raised the concentration of CO2 to levels higher than any previous concentration over the past 15 million years.[iv] Since the industrial revolution we’ve experienced a 0.85°C increase in average climate temperatures worldwide – and current policy is on track to increase by up to 3.9°C by the end of this century.*[v] The consequences of global warming include further impacts on agricultural systems, food and water security, migration and statelessness, public health, and conflict.[vi] Worse still, impacts associated with warming are complex, interlinked and nonlinear.[vii]

The high-temperature scenarios entail changes to earth systems and our everyday lives in ways beyond our current understanding. But, we can prevent this becoming reality if we move to a new normal of sustainable development. We already have the capacity to do this, so why aren’t we acting now?

A Parisian affair

In December last year, the Paris Agreement signified global optimism for political action and acceptance of sustainable development as a new normal. The 2°C target is still an arbitrarily (read: politically) decided ‘safe’ limit for warming. There is a difference between climate action and climate justice. A 1.5°C target, that was considered, would have been more just. 2°C is unjust because it guarantees the loss of many small island states, whereas a 1.5°C target would not. In order to even meet the 2°C temperature target the goal is to decarbonise the global economy. We need to have net zero, or negative greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century. All of the combined national pledges however do not currently add up to staying within a 2°C target, let alone the aspirational 1.5°C target. [viii] If pledges are fulfilled, we could potentially limit warming to 2.4-2.7°C.[ix] This is not acceptable.

Australia’s pledge to the Paris Agreement is inadequate considering Australia’s capacity to lead on climate issues. Australia’s current efforts (or lack thereof) for climate action champion a world 3-4°C warmer.[x]

Despite the optimism of reaching a global agreement, there are still potential obstructions to its ratification. To meet the agreed targets countries will need to up the ante to ensure their pledges are met. For example, the US will not meet its current pledge without further policy measures. If a conservative president is elected, or the Clean Power Plan repealed, there will be no chance of meeting its pledge.[xi] The Kyoto Protocol, the predecessor to the Paris Agreement, was disastrous in practice due to its lack of enforcement mechanisms. Countries such as Canada, who failed to comply with their obligations to the treaty simply walked out of the agreement.[xii] The Paris Agreement does not guarantee that we are on the pathway to meet our 2°C target – despite its optimistic aspirations. Like the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement’s compliance mechanisms are ineffective, and both lack enforcement mechanisms to ensure that pledges are met.

Blossoming romance?

We can keep warming within 2°C and create a new sustainable normal for society. Opportunities abound for decarbonising our global economy. Cities are leading action toward decarbonisation. Adelaide, for example, is aiming to be the first carbon neutral city within the next five years.[xiii] Low-carbon economies provide multitudes of flow-on benefits on top of supporting a sustainable future for all. The benefits of decarbonisation include greater access to basic resources including energy, increased energy security, hunger and poverty reduction, technological innovation, and improved public health.[xiv]

A new sustainable development paradigm is necessary to limit warming to even 2°C and reduce the potential for more severe impacts. In 2014 we were already more than halfway through our carbon emissions budget for a 2°C temperature increase.[xv] The carbon budget refers to the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere for eternity. If other greenhouse gases were taken into account such as methane and nitrous oxide, that budget would be even smaller. The current emissions trend would see the carbon budget run dry by 2045.[xvi]

To stay within this budget we need to keep remaining fossil fuel reserves in the ground. We could blow the global carbon budget by around 75% if these assets are extracted and used.[xvii] The divestment movement to decarbonise investments has the potential to begin a domino effect for change, and to send clear investment signals that fossil fuels are now stranded assets. Largescale divestment from fossil fuel companies will be a fundamental measure for global decarbonisation.

The realm of the possible

Decarbonisation is realisable with existing technology and policy tools.[xviii] What is missing is forward momentum to put in place the changes necessary to decarbonise before our global carbon budget is used up. We need to decouple the growth of greenhouse emissions from economic growth. Already in 2014 and 2015, the global economy continued to grow whilst emissions halted temporarily.[xix] This demonstrated that it is possible to continue developing without endlessly producing greater emissions.

Shifts in traditional economic thinking could help move us toward sustainable development. An alternative economic model is the steady-state economy, which does not solely aim to grow constantly, as it is acknowledged that economic resources are finite. But as we have seen already with the decoupling of growth and emissions, it is not crucial to reconceptualise economic systems to stay within a 2°C target.

Despite the climate challenge providing potential opportunities for the creation of new ideological systems, complete political and economic overhauls are not vital to staying within a 2°C target. The idea that climate change could be a symptom of capitalism, not the origin of the problem itself is a legitimate concern. Yet we do not need radical new political and economic systems to meet our 2°C goal. The lack of a clear vision for an alternative system impedes the practicality of overhauling current systems. If opportunities for positive social change for better societies and democracies appear, we should take advantage of them. However, we cannot afford to wait for these opportunities to be developed at the expense of taking action on climate change now. It is critical we act quickly with the tools we have at hand. To stay within 2°C we don’t need a revolution, but an evolution of ideas and practices.

Corporate and political interests are obstructing climate change, and ought to be challenged by the people. In Australia, the carbon-based industrial lobby successfully repealed the carbon tax for their own benefit. [xxi] This retracted a policy that could have helped Australia to decarbonise its economy much sooner. In the last 3 years, major federal parties received $3.7 million in donations from fossil fuel companies, and big polluters will receive $7.7 billion in subsidies in 2016-17.[xxii] Campaigns to dilute their interference in politics, such as 350.org’s Pollution Free Politics campaign, are seeking to create new restrictions on donations, limit lobby influence and increase transparency.[xxiii] By better educating themselves, individuals can empower themselves to take action in their own lives and in the wider community, particularly through involvement with grassroots campaigns such as the Fossil Free divestment movement.[xxiv]

If we want to truly aspire to limiting warming to 1.5°C, more radical changes might be necessary. For real climate justice – say a 1.5°C warmer future where small island states are not inundated by rising sea levels and are allowed to keep their sovereign land, we may need systemic overhauls. Right now we are dooming many small states that are powerless to limit rising sea levels on their own. These states are not responsible for the climate change now threatening their very existence, so why should they be the first to go under? Climate justice is a serious concern, one that has hitherto not received adequate attention in climate policy. However, as stated earlier, we cannot afford to wait for new economic systems to meet the demands of climate justice to take any action at all. The urgency of climate action demands that we take action now, within our existing economic systems.

Australia should make the first move

Let’s look at Australia as a case study for decarbonisation. According to a review of studies on Australia’s post-2020 emissions by the WWF in collaboration with the ANU, Australia is extremely well-positioned to decarbonise. The cost of low-emissions technologies is continuously falling faster than predicted and continues to fall relative to fossil fuel alternatives. Further, emissions reductions are found to be extremely cheap, and could even result in a net economic benefit. [xxv]

Australia has great potential for renewable energy as the sunniest and second windiest continent. Renewables could be providing 500 times the current power generated[xxvi] – we have absolutely no excuse to power our electricity using fossil fuels. Changing existing energy infrastructure to renewables is affordable as existing electricity generation assets will be retired by mid-century regardless.[xxvii] It’s possible to have a 100% renewable energy mix by 2030 with existing technologies, as shown by UNSW modelling.[xxviii] Electricity emissions only account for less than half of Australia’s emissions, however, there is potential for the remaining emissions to be offset by carbon plantings and forestry to bring Australia’s emissions to zero.[xxix]

The ACT Government is a leading example for climate action and is on track to decarbonise its electricity sector by 2025, which accounts for 79% of its emissions.[xxx] We can still improve in other areas, such as changing our consumption patterns for the better, to become a better example of a ‘developed’ lifestyle in line with the principles of sustainable development, particularly for developing nations who aspire to live like us. China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is moving toward a new low-carbon growth model.[xxxi] Australia needs to do the same, at all levels of government.

We can no longer afford to be locked into carbon-polluting assets. The coal from the Galilee Basin in Queensland, where the controversial Adani mine was recently approved, contains 6% of the remaining global carbon budget.[xxxii] Not only does Australia need to decarbonise its own economy, it needs to seriously consider the moral implications of exporting coal that will contribute to the depletion of the carbon budget.

A new beginning

There are two possible responses to the changing climate: we can act or react. We need a new values-system based on sustainable principles to motivate people intrinsically. This is compatible with current models for economic growth, but does not mean that new conceptions of economic or political systems cannot be developed over time.

There is a need to act now so as not to miss opportunities for change. Ask yourself what you could do to help chart our path toward a sustainable future – and take action. You can educate yourself and those around you about climate issues, divest personal savings and super funds from fossil fuel companies, join local grassroots campaigns at university or in your local community, and assess your own personal emissions and take steps to reduce them. We need to hold governments and companies accountable for their actions and decisions, or else the Paris Agreement may simply become hot air. We need to push for action now. It is the only chance we have to stay within a more just goal of a 1.5°C future.

Our new normal, can benefit the environment and everything living within its boundaries, even our global economy in the long run. We are well aware of all the benefits of change – and the downsides to inaction. We need to take charge on charting our path toward the new normal, as determined by us.