Physicist and popularizer José Miguel Viñas has published his tenth book. The book ‘Our climate problem’ that he tries to explain in a fun and simple way all the keys to the most important challenge facing humanity.
How is ‘Our Climate Problem’ different from your other books?
-This book reflects an evolution in me. It’s not a popular book, it’s an essay. The only thing he’s released so far has been weather or climate disclosure. I think there is a saturation. We’ve been talking about climate change for a very long time, and we’re in a kind of loop that keeps stopping to say the same thing, even as new things pop up. But things are changing, and there are now many writers raising the issue of population growth and other social approaches, so not only is the scientific question of the subject being addressed, but viewed from other angles as well.
– Do you think this change in approach to the problem has anything to do with the fact that climate change is already affecting us?
-Actually. This is exactly how it differs for me from what was done ten years or less ago. We warned that there would be some effects in general, and we even saw some of them, but we couldn’t detect them directly. I believe we are now beginning to perceive how these influences affect our daily activities. And I’m not just talking about heat waves, but many other phenomena that become extreme at any time of the year.
-In ‘Our climate problem’ you bring up some of the future scenarios, which one worries you the most?
For example, if the temperature continues to rise and this is associated with extreme events, it can have a very negative impact on very basic things like agriculture. Every country adapts to one type of agriculture and understands that it can withstand a bad year. However, this can completely overturn all that planning. If we consider Spain, for example, the staple crops olive tree and vine will no longer be viable in a particular climate scenario after 40 or 50 years. To a large extent this can be a very serious problem for an activity-based economy.
“We are now starting to perceive how the effects of climate change affect our daily activities”
-Global warming is expected to rise above one and a half degrees with the arrival of El Niño this year, what does that mean?
-When you talk about the goal of keeping global temperatures below one and a half degrees, you are talking about stabilizing at the end of the century, not that the temperature will not be reached before. This song has been sung. In fact, corrections have been made to the estimates. At first, it was said to be in the middle of the century, but it was later reduced to 2030. Now, it is said that there will be a year before 2030. With the eruption of El Niño, who knows, we’ll reach that limit in two or three years. The point is not to reach the top, but to see where the rise stops. For that, we have a margin of twenty or thirty years to decide what to do with the emissions. If we fail to bring them down, it is almost certain that by the end of the century we will be well above a degree and a half, and this will have far greater effects.
-What do you think about current policies to curb climate change?
It is clear that small steps have been taken. The climate summits are there, and progress is being made even if it doesn’t seem like it. In the second, for example, a paper commitment was made for the first world to start helping the third world. It’s a small thing that needs to be done and reinforced. The problem we have is that the changes that need to be made are structural. It is not worth using warm washcloths or taking measures based on happy ideas. We have to change the structure of our society, and this is a very complex issue that needs to be addressed.
There is an example of a successful global agreement on the improvement of the ozone layer. Why is it more expensive now?
Although the Montreal Protocol had its advantages, it was much easier to address the problem of ozone depletion than the problem of climate change. It was very local and not all-encompassing like fossil fuels. Since the problem was caused by a number of industrially used gases, the emissions of these gases could be stopped and reduced to almost zero, and positive results began to be obtained. But there is much more at stake now. Let’s say that 30% of those who get there are directly related to transport emissions. Transport cannot be changed globally from one year to the next. We have to think of another way to get around, to build and consume our cities. There are many things at once that need to be adapted to the realities of each country. That’s why I think it takes so long to make decisions and make great progress. Many climate summits are held, but it is not possible for a big change in this inertia of our society at one summit.
-There have always been movements against climate change, but it seems that denialism gets stronger when you take action to stop it. How do you see this?
The problem with denialism is that a number of factors come into play outside the science of climate change itself. There was an early stage when this denialism was part of the scientific debate, and there are still some remnants of this notion that pop up from time to time. But in general, the denial that exists among the population today is linked to ideological issues. Since there is a deep social change that needs to be made, this means questioning the capitalist model that prevails in the world, and there are some ideologies that oppose it. This is where provocative speeches that refuse to accept that we have to change things day in and day out arise. That’s the voice of the deniers because they don’t accept the fact that changes need to be made. They also get stuck on issues like individual freedom, not realizing that we have a model of life that is clearly unsustainable and that it cannot be extended over time.
“What needs to be done is profound social change, and that means questioning the capitalist model that prevails in the world.”
-Many people do not understand that we are facing an emergency, what do you think went wrong?
I think even the scientific community itself is incapable of communicating climate change. We’re talking about very complex topics, and if you don’t communicate it well, you risk being rejected or the message not delivered. Then there’s the fact that it’s not a direct threat. If NASA tells us that in three months a large asteroid will hit the earth, the whole world will be alarmed and everything possible will be done to deflect that object. The population would not relax. Climate change has so far not been seen close, which has led to climate inaction. However, it’s been two or three years now that many people have begun to realize that this is a direct threat because it is already affecting their activity. The people working in the fields are already seeing that this is not just a rare and dry year, but that the extreme heat is having significant effects on the health of the population… More and more people now see climate change happening and it’s not going to happen in the future.
-Are you optimistic?
-I think we have room to change a lot of things and change the evolution of the climate, aside from the fact that the data is what it is and we can’t blind ourselves to the truth. I’m holding on to this. I don’t think we should throw in towels. Difficult? Yes, but we still have the opportunity. There will come a time when some of the big decisions taken between most countries will move in the right direction. There are key elements such as world trade and transportation, which, if correct and mutually agreed, can respond in a not too long time. It’s possible and we’ll see. But we must not forget that climate change is accelerating, so the longer the decision-making process is delayed, the harder it will be for us to avoid a dangerous scenario.
……..
Contact details of the environment department: [email protected]