QUICK & PULSE

"We are still in the phase of denial when it comes to recognizing climate change as a problem," says climate researcher and Earth system scientist Wolfgang Lucht. In light of the environmental and justice crisis, he calls for a renewal of democratic society – Part 1 of the interview.

Climate Reporter°: Mr. Lucht, recently climate researchers called for the world to prepare for the possibility of a "climate endgame" in the scientific journal PNAS. However, in light of the renewed extreme heat this summer with fires, drought, water scarcity, and excess mortality, the question arises whether something like the endgame has already begun.

Wolfgang Lucht: The article first discusses the worst-case scenario that could occur. The authors call it "endgame."

A realistic assessment of a risk involves not only dealing with the most likely case but especially also with the less likely, but still not excluded, worst-case scenario.

For a reason, we have fire alarms in buildings. For the Earth system, we have only had very inadequate fire alarms so far. This cannot continue in this way.

The worst-case scenario for the Earth system would be if greenhouse gas emissions decrease more slowly than necessary and the Earth responds to this with warming at the upper end of the conceivable warming range.

The consequences can intertwine like a cascade and trigger a cascade of disturbances that build up further. This then affects the oceans, ice, and weather as well as the ecological systems of the Earth and our societies with their achievements.

Unfortunately, we still know very little about this case. Research has so far focused mainly on exploring within which limits we should stabilize the Earth. This is also important and shows us the path we should take. But just as important is research at the opposite end of the possibilities: a catastrophic development.

Can it be ruled out that this avalanche has already been set in motion by disturbances?

We do not know exactly at which threshold values a chain of events can be triggered that will escalate. It is probably still within a range that could be stabilized.

But it is clear: Important planetary load limits have already been exceeded today, not just in terms of climate. There are already processes in motion that are no longer sustainable. These include the melting of permafrost, the changes in high mountains, the slowing down of the crucial North Atlantic current, the increase in extreme weather events, and forest fires.

Nevertheless, we are only at the beginning of the transformation, there is still much more to come. And even if we were to take strong countermeasures now – which we are not really doing – the braking path would be long.

Just because we know too little about how all these impacts of global warming interact across many sectors and regions and can build up into a landslide, the science should work more on this.

It's not about predictions, but that we pay too little attention to the worst-case scenario that could occur. However, this is important to be able to assess the risks soundly and adjust accordingly. Because it's not too late for that yet.

The Paris 1.5-degree goal seems to foster the idea that civilization, especially the Western one, must adapt to the warming – in general, we could continue to live as before. Isn't that a rather mistaken belief?

Yes, that is the core of the self-deception in which we still mostly live.

On the one hand, the consequences of global warming are not really seen. And even if they are mentioned, they remain abstract and often slip through the mind without much thought. The talk is then of "destabilization of ecosystems" or "weakening of the North Atlantic circulation." This sounds technical and abstract.

On the other hand, there is the grand claim, partly even within the scientific community, that we only need to make a few wise and correct decisions, and then society, politics, and the economy can continue more or less as before, only greener and more sustainable.

This is a deception. When we say that "business as usual" can no longer be an option, then there is also no green "business as usual" that relies almost exclusively on technology and barely changes the structures that have brought us into crisis.

The upcoming great transformation to sustainability means exactly this: it is large and transformative. It means a different way of doing business, a different way of life, a new, future-oriented economic, financial, and social policy.

Wealth and well-being need to be rethought for this century. And isn't that already the case? We are not really satisfied with our stressed, tense, insecure, and often unsolidaristic lives.

Doubts are growing that democratic societies can successfully achieve this transformation.

In addition to combating the environmental crisis, many other policy areas must be advanced in this transformation. A broad renewal of democratic society, especially in the face of the ecological and justice crises – this is the opportunity for the future.

Because the cracks in the current system are indeed visible everywhere, not just in the tipping of the Earth system. It also requires a renewed or even new economy, a different understanding of industrial history and capitalism, as well as more solidarity across groups and borders in democracy.

There are many good approaches for this, but few in politics openly address and advocate for them.

In the debate about the civilizational consequences of climate change, you complain about an "narrow understanding of social vulnerability." What does that mean?

I mean the idea that although we cause enormous effects on the climate and the living beings of the Earth, that we destabilize the great environmental systems, our own societies would somehow be mysteriously stable and not drawn in.

The tempting assumption prevails that we could simply absorb all the changes around us, as they do not actually concern us at all.