Europe’s environmental watchdog is 30 years old this year — a lifespan in which the continent has warmed twice as fast as any other region, and has also witnessed a sea change in green policy in that time.
Ahead of the European Union elections, next month, in which climate change will be a key issue, the European Environment Agency has now issued its first climate risk assessment report. It identifies 36 main risks alongside data showing that the continent should prepare for temperatures around 3C warmer than in pre-industrial times, by 2050.
Leena Ylä-Mononen, head of the agency, spoke to EU correspondent Alice Hancock about the findings of the report, which she said should serve as an urgent warning to policymakers.
This is an edited transcript of that discussion, covering the risks of a financial shock and migration as the bloc heads towards a worst-case scenario of temperatures 7C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, if it does not accelerate climate action.
Alice Hancock: How radical an overhaul of EU policy do you think is needed to deal with the climate risks that you outline in the report?
Leena Ylä-Mononen: I think it’s a wider call than only [for] EU policy, because some of the risks are really more for member states [to address] — but it is a wake-up call.
We see, now, the potential climate change impacts are hitting us and we are [approaching] 1.5C of global warming [since pre-industrial times]. So action is needed and it is urgent action that is needed.
So, yes, it is quite a radical wake-up call, I would say. But, of course, we can also see that there are already policies in place. So in some cases it is merely to strengthen them and bring them to the next level or gear up, instead of inventing totally new instruments.
For example, most, if not all, the member states have some kind of strategic plan on adaptation, and hence it may [be] a call for reinforcing that.
AH: You model the different degrees [of warming], but how conservative do you think you were? Did you rein yourself back on any of the recommendations at all?
L Y-M: What we know is that current climate models are slightly underestimating the climate. So it means that the data which are available, especially in the last year, [showing that] we are now hitting 1.5C, have been underestimated in the model.
The second thing, the range of the models, or the range of the output, is quite high when you go towards the end of the century because we don’t know which scenario [we will end up with]. So global mitigation action is really important at this stage because we can really avoid some of the consequences which are catastrophic ones.
In terms of the risks, towards the end of the century all of the risks will be either critical or catastrophic. At the moment we are not at that level. But, the further we go towards a high warming scenario, the number of risks in the catastrophic level [will be] high.
This is something which, actually, is a surprise. More action is needed now to prevent these kinds of catastrophic risks in the future. If you put this together, 21 out of the 36 risks need more urgent action at this stage.
AH: It’s quite a scary picture. How much understanding of, and appetite for, acting on climate risks do you see among EU and member state governments and policymakers?
L Y-M: Member states do have their policies, maybe not at the level needed, but they are aware of the issue and that adaptation needs to come together with the mitigation efforts, which need to definitely continue.
I would say also, perhaps, not all sectors have woken up on this, or not sufficiently. So, thinking of all the built environment or, indeed, urban planning, I think there’s quite a good awareness but maybe not yet at the real action level, [in which] they would really embed it in their systems. [This is] also [the case in] agriculture, which is fighting with many problems and issues at the moment, with the protests on the streets.
AH: The policymakers’ response to some of the agricultural concerns has been to lessen environmental standards in agriculture. Do you see that as a regressive step, given the risks that agriculture faces?
L Y-M: I see that there’s more potential for finding the synergies and co-benefits of having both continuing efficient mitigation measures — so that we don’t end up with these catastrophic scenarios — but also reinforcing best agricultural practices and policies, to be more prepared for unfortunate weather events and other problems that are likely to be increasing in the future. So I think it is a call, also, for this sector to really look at it comprehensively.
AH: You also mention systemic financial shock. How close are we to that?
L Y-M: I think we are not yet there, but it is accumulating. If we start talking about major investment into our infrastructure or, if we make wrong choices in investing in the way we are constructing our society — tangibly and intangibly — I think the risks are getting higher and higher.
But, definitely, towards the end of the century, the risks of having a major financial shock are getting more likely. Shocks are the highest when you have this unfortunate situation of many risks coming at the same time.
The report also introduces this notion of wild cards, when you experience something which you have not been prepared for in any of the scenarios.
AH: A lot of people say we need root and branch reform of the financial architecture to deal with climate change. Do you see that happening? And, if we don’t do that, how much of a risk is it not to?
L Y-M: This is definitely also a wake-up call for the financial sector and the insurance industry. There is underinsuring of certain risks already, and low-income households, especially, cannot necessarily protect themselves against all the risks. [This is] also [true] for some livelihoods. I don’t know how the southern farmers can protect their harvest anymore, for example, against drought.
In recent years, when the EU Green Deal has been putting climate issues upfront, the understanding of the importance of climate change has been raised. But, now, this adaptation urgency and this [need for] societal preparedness may come as a bit of a surprise.
When it comes to the economy and finance, you can see that there are, of course, some risks which are urgent to act [upon, such as in] the European solidarity mechanism [which provides emergency support for EU countries hit by climate change], public financing. [But], when it comes to the insurance, we don’t fully know how this will evolve in the future because some regions in Europe will be affected so much that insurance will not be a solution there. [In those cases] transformative adaptation solutions are needed.
AH: There was one element in the economic and financial section of the report that said there was a considerable risk that the potential effects of climate change are brought forward by financial market anticipation or exacerbated by overreaction.
L Y-M: When it comes to the insurance, you need to have a proper plan of how to do it. But, when it comes to the financial sector, it’s quite complicated, because this is basically cascading from all other sectors.
So, of course, there are lots of uncertainties, but climate change can lead to some of those shocks. There was a Slovenia flood example in the report which shows that one [climate] event can actually lead to a 10-16 per cent decline in [Slovenia’s] GDP, which can be very shocking for member states. And, here, the EU comes in: among other things, we can — through the solidarity mechanism and through the co-ownership of some of the risk — actually come with solutions, which are then European solutions.
AH: You mentioned that, among various recommendations, the EU solidarity mechanism needs a robust increase. Could you put a figure on that?
L Y-M: It’s difficult to put a figure from our side. We have estimates for the cost of inaction and for what, for example, a major flood event, or forest fire, [costs] in general. But climate risk is not the only risk that the solidarity funds would need to cover. So I don’t think that we have one figure that would be enough for preparing. But it’s clear that the current solidarity funds have already been oversubscribed.
AH: One thing that really struck me in reading the report was that there was no mention of migration. I imagine if the climate impacts in southern Europe, for example, are worse than northern Europe, there could be movement [northwards]. How much impact do you think movement of people will have?
L Y-M: It’s not in the scope [of this report]. But many member states have made estimates of what it could mean if there are major climate incidents in the neighbouring areas. So this is also a related topic and, thinking of the overall security aspect, mitigating climate change is so important for overall security.
AH: I’m also thinking of the Portuguese teenagers who took all the EU governments to court over climate change. To what extent is there a risk, if governments don’t act, that citizens will want to hold them liable for inaction?
L Y-M: This is, indeed, a big topic at the moment, these court cases. I think the attention has been more, so far, on mitigation — the failure to mitigate, and to get to the targets that the EU has.
The failure in adaptation [is] a potential cause for future court cases, as well. For example, if there’s a major flood event in a member state and it is suspected that the government or the local authorities have not done enough, certainly, in many countries, the legislation would allow [people] to challenge the inaction.
AH: One thing I thought was interesting [in the report] was how the EU should help its external partners, because our emissions are much smaller here than in the rest of the world. Are there any specific things you think the EU should address in its external policy now, that could help partners deal with climate change?
L Y-M: The EU is doing a lot to advocate for the mitigation of climate change. Cutting emissions as soon as possible is the first thing that one needs to do. But I also think global negotiations for adaptation, as well as the loss and damage issues, are more and more prominent.
There are states which are going to be suffering really concretely over this decade, I’m afraid. So, of course, the EU is already doing what it can to address those devastating impacts in external countries.
AH: Ahead of the European elections in June, people are talking about a much bigger swing to the far right and, possibly, more scepticism towards climate change policies. What kind of messaging do you think politicians should be giving ahead of the election? And how much of a risk is there of a backlash against green policy?
L Y-M: The situation is rather different than five years ago, when the previous European elections were held. Then, the climate and environmental topics were high on the agenda. Now, it’s war, security, defence and competitiveness . . . these hard issues are up front.
However, it is not likely that the climate issues can be put in the least priority basket because we already have both our own legislation in the EU committing to the mitigation and adaptation policies, and our global commitment. So I don’t believe that this is going to stop the climate policies.
I hope that when we discuss security, that all sides remember that climate change and environmental pressures are also part of that picture.
AH: My final question — is there any good news we can look at?
L Y-M: Well, there’s still time to act, both on mitigation — we can really do a lot to avoid the worst scenario [of 7C warming in Europe by 2100] — and there is also time to really prepare our society.
So it is not doomsday. We don’t call for giving up, quite the contrary. Now is the time to act, and there are many ways we can prepare ourselves and societies for this future.
