Interview with Inger Andersen, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Program

Interview by Michael Shellenberger with Inger Andersen, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Program

The death toll from natural disasters declined 90% in 40 years, and most energy experts believe we are unlikely to exceed 2.5-3 degrees warming. I was surprised you didn’t mention those facts in your speech. Do these trends give you hope for mitigation and adaptation?

Humanity has made considerable progress in the last few decades on reducing mortality from natural disasters and this is a tremendous achievement, but the science is very clear on where we stand today and the kind of future we face. If we rely only on the current climate commitments of the Paris Agreement, temperatures can be expected to rise to 3.2°C this century. Temperatures have already increased by 1.1°C, leaving families, homes, and communities devastated. In 2019 for example, WMO reported that more than 6.7 million people were internally displaced by disasters triggered by hydrometeorological events such as Cyclone Idai in Southeast Africa, Cyclone Fani in South Asia, Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean, and flooding in Iran, the Philippines, and Ethiopia. This number is forecast to reach close to 22 million in 2019, up from 17.2 million in 2018. 

So we are faced with a scenario where extreme weather events will rise, and magnify in their impact and this will drain human capacity to deal with these events. So yes, there is much to be optimistic about, but this should not take away from the very bleak reality we face. And we need to look no further than the start of 2020 to know that the crisis we face is unprecedented, from bushfires in Australia to the hottest January on record since we began keeping records 141 years ago and the most severe locust invasion in Kenya in 70 years – which poses a huge threat to food security – to, of course, the present-day COVID-19 pandemic. So we need mitigation. We need adaptation. We need all the tools at our disposal and we need to act with a degree of emergency that has thus far been lacking.

What does it mean for the IPCC to “stand firm”? Is there some risk of it not standing firm? If so how? Should IPCC be limited to reporting the science or should it also engage in advocacy?

My reference to ‘standing firm’ was in relation to member states who may want to “negotiate” the science because the reality is – and as the UN Secretary-General has said – you cannot negotiate with nature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental body of 195 member states that is unequivocal on the science of climate change. It plays a critical role in providing regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impact and risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Its role, therefore, is to provide humanity a mirror into the future we face and IPCC has consistently sounded the alarm on the devastation that this future holds. There is a huge risk if we continue to ignore the science, the gap between where we are and where we need to be, continues to widen, and with each day, it becomes more difficult to reign in runaway climate change.

What do you mean when you say, “Nature is the foundation of human societies and economies”? Many economists believe technological change is the foundation of our high energy societies. Do you disagree? What do you mean when you say, “Virtually every problem we face, can be traced back to the breakdown of our relationship with nature.”

Nature gives us everything that makes life on this possible. It gives us the food we eat, the water we drink, the materials with which we build our homes, and the mechanisms that regulate our weather patterns, our ocean currents, and much more. How the “earth’s systems” regulate our ability to exist and thrive on planet earth has been less understood.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2020 that was released this year, more than half of the world’s total GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature. When we destroy nature, we also chip away at the foundation we need to guarantee just, sustainable development for all people on the planet. Technological change is a hugely important tool in the solution toolbox, whether in addressing the climate and nature crisis or reducing pollution. At this moment in history, we need all hands on deck. We need all solutions to be put into play, and technology, innovation, human entrepreneurship – are all important tools for us to deploy to the fullest. This is not an “either-or” but an “all or nothing” moment. 

I could give you a number of examples of how we can trace so many of humanity’s challenges back to the breakdown of our relationship with nature, but quite frankly we need to look no further than the COVID-19 outbreak currently engulfing the world. We have ignored the balance of nature’s web for far too long, and we are now seeing the impacts of our actions.

Do you believe that human societies had a stronger relationship to nature when they were agricultural or some other preindustrial mode of production?

Certainly, growing up I remember being far closer to nature than, for example, I see young people today. My generation took nature for granted, and future generations are and will have to live with the consequences of this unless we change the trajectory we are on. Our current economic model – based on unrestrained consumption and production – simply cannot continue. According to UNEP’s Global Resources Outlook, over the past 50 years, the extraction of materials has tripled. Food and agriculture, and buildings and construction accounted for nearly 70% of the world’s total material footprint in 2015. So yes, we need to reset our relationship with nature, and this goes far beyond saying for example, that we will buy fewer clothes or recycle our soda cans, etc, but calls for us to take a critical look at regulatory frameworks, our behaviors as individuals and as a society, and how our business models influence our consumption patterns.

You wrote, “It is time to put the conservation and restoration of nature at the heart of our societies, and we are working hard to push this agenda.” Is it appropriate for poor and developing societies to do this or just developed ones?

Developed countries have to reduce emissions quicker because as UNEP’s 2019 Emissions Gap report makes clear, G20 nations collectively account for 78% of all emissions. These countries can no longer export carbon pollution to other countries. Footprints must fall. And all countries, whether developed or developing need to step up commitments and action to revise nationally-determined contributions in 2020, up-wards of a five-fold increase. 

But we must recognize that the crisis of nature, where we have altered an overwhelming majority of our land and sea, requires all of us, whether are developed or developing, to put nature at the heart of our strategies to build a prosperous, peaceful, and sustainable future for all. Environmental challenges know no boundaries. Take the Sahel for example. Changing rainfall patterns are affecting livelihoods across the wider region, threatening food production, water and energy supplies, and health. They also lead to conflict. Old livestock grazing patterns have been lost, populations have increased, and people displaced by climate change and land degradation – as well as other conflicts – have come into areas traditionally governed by others. So what happens in one country impacts another.

Failure to halt the damage will have severe impacts on human health and livelihoods, decimating rich biodiversity and leaving the world more exposed to the climate crises and yet more disasters. Australia’s bushfires, for example, will undoubtedly cause a jump in carbon concentrations in the atmosphere this year, and this affects us all.

Do you believe there is evidence for leap-frogging?

 Absolutely. Many developing countries have still not reached 100% energy access and energy poverty remains a big factor.  But energy production expansion need not be hydro-carbon based. Options for renewables are available and prices are becoming highly competitive and attractive. Here in Kenya for example, we are seeing huge investments in geothermal and wind parks. In Morocco, the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station is the world's largest concentrated solar power plant. So leap-frogging is happening and must continue.

 Similarly, new technologies like LED lighting are allowing developing countries to be more efficient in energy use. This is the time to be smart about sustainability, driving down poverty, and providing energy to all. Thirty years ago, for example, we would not have thought it was possible to bypass the landline telephone altogether.  

We need to support leapfrogging across the world, in every country, business, and home.