Don't kill climate deadlines

I'm taking some time out from my time out to write about deadlines. Oddly, very oddly IMO, there are objections to deadlines coming from a number of quarters. Deadlines are essential for us to combat climate change. It should be obvious and it seems silly to have to argue the point. But it seems I do.

We are on a collision course with nature, a collision course of our own making. We need to change course. We've started, but we've not done nearly enough yet to prevent major damage. We need to do more and we need to keep planning how and set timelines and targets, otherwise known as deadlines. Then we have to carry out those plans.

We've missed opportunities and are suffering the consequences, with places running out of water, suffering unprecedented heat waves, drought and floods. That's with just over 1 C of warming. Urgent action is needed to avoid much greater harm.

Want to stay below 1.5 C? Then we'll need to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. Willing to accept an overshoot or let the world get a bit hotter? Then adjust those numbers accordingly and prepare to pay even more for disaster recovery and adaptation.

However much climate change we get will, to a great extent, be a decision by governments and ultimately a decision by all of us. Even no decision is a decision. That is, if we give up, that's a decision in favour of suffering, famine, war, disease and social chaos. We'll have decided to let the world as we know it disappear much sooner rather than eons later.

The anti-deadline crowd - aka climate action delayers

There was a recent very silly article in Nature Climate Change, which which I absolutely disagree. The authors, one of whom I've had a run in with before, are arguing against deadlines for reducing climate emissions. They put up multiple objections, which could be applied to any deadline for anything. Here are some analogies to the objections they've raised.

You don't like the deadline your supervisor has set for submitting your PhD paper? Tell her there's a risk you'll overshoot the deadline and, to avoid that, you'll steal someone else's work so the deadline will do more harm than good.

Your bank tells you you've got to pay your mortgage each month and you'll have to repay the entire loan within 20 years? Tell them you don't believe in deadlines because there's a risk you'll be so concerned about paying your mortgage that you'll end up robbing a bank to meet the payments.

Your fiance wants to set the date for your wedding. Tell him deadlines aren't something you believe in. You refuse to set a date because doing so alienates you and you'll decide you don't want to get married after all.

How pathetic. Makes you wonder how they manage their lives, doesn't it.

The authors finish up by implying the IPCC shouldn't have accepted the invitation from the UNFCCC to write a report about staying below 1.5 C. The IPCC shouldn't have asked scientists to work out the timeline for reducing emissions to achieve that goal the world is aiming for. In fact, these ratbags claim that by doing science, the IPCC is demonstrating it's not politically neutral.

What utter rot!

ATTP has written more about that delayer's paper, and has included some background information on the authors.

We need to meet multiple deadlines. It's called planning.

These delayers aren't the only people who object to deadlines. There was a recent article at the BBC, written by Matt McGrath, which drew criticism from some surprising quarters. This time the criticism didn't just come from deniers and delayers, it came from people who should understand the urgency of the task ahead. Matt McGrath wrote:

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year....

...As countries usually scope out their plans over five and 10 year timeframes, if the 45% carbon cut target by 2030 is to be met then the plans really need to be on the table by the end of 2020.

That's right. Political steps will need to be taken before the end of 2020 if there's any chance of staying below 1.5 C (though I doubt that can be achieved). As Matt McGrath explains, that's because of the timetable of the UNFCCC and the length of the emission reduction plans put forward by governments.

Whether the world decides to try for reducing emissions by 45% by 2030, or zero by 2050, or whether they set a softer target hoping to keep the temperature rise to 2 C or 3 C rather than 4 C or 6 C or higher, it will need planning. Planning takes time, and it's just the first stage. After that plans must be carried out. That also takes time.

 If you don't set any deadlines you most definitely won't meet them

Some people have expressed the view that by setting deadlines we risk not meeting them. I say, so what? If you don't set any deadlines you most definitely won't meet them.

How many times have you not met a deadline but still completed the task, even if a bit late? How often has this happened when you didn't have a deadline to meet? Or, to put it another way, how many times have you failed to achieve something because there was no imperative to do so?

Think about this:

• If you haven't set a deadline you've not fully defined the goal. We could get to net zero emissions by 2050, or we could have no deadline and get there when fossil fuel runs out or when the world is too chaotic to burn any.
• Complaining timelines are meaningless is not only totally wrongheaded, it favours delayers and deniers, not action.
• Rather than get caught up in worrying about how to explain the world not ending if a deadline is missed, worry about what happens if the world doesn't bother to make plans to reduce emissions.
• Don't let governments get away with avoiding their responsibilities - insist on plans and deadlines. We should do whatever we can to help nations reduce emissions and work out how to get there and commit to it (which is all largely outside the purview of science).
• Science has for decades been pointing to the need to cut emissions and cut them sooner rather than later. This won't be achieved by wringing of hands or vague pleas to "do it now or do it soon", it will only happen if action is taken. That takes planning. Random unplanned actions would be worse than useless.

I know there are people who are scared of deadlines because they worry scientists will be attacked if the world doesn't end if a deadline is missed. That is, they want to avoid arguing logical fallacies, the bread and butter of climate science deniers. I say it's better to put up with attacks on science from the usual quarters if the world doesn't end than be attacked for letting it happen. In any case, if deadlines aren't met it's on nations and governments, not scientists. No-one can complain scientists haven't warned us.

Shorter deadlines are better

Research shows that setting more immediate deadlines is better than setting deadlines a long time ahead. If the deadline is too far away it is likely people will think it's harder to achieve, will take more resources than it really does, and people are also likely to procrastinate.

My career involved a lot of planning work, so I'm all for deadlines. I'm also in favour of setting milestones along the way, each of which can be regarded as a deadline. If there's a slip up somewhere, then provided you've a plan you can always reset and keep heading toward the ultimate goal, step by step.

Planning takes more than a deadline

Maybe a problem is that the people who object to deadlines don't have any conception of what has to go into reducing emissions, from a whole of government perspective. It takes a heck of a lot more than writing a number on a piece of paper with a future date. It takes complex analysis, planning, coordination, setting targets/timelines/milestones and getting all government agencies on board (an extremely difficult task). I challenge anyone to map out a detailed path to reducing emissions without including any timelines.

If you approve just one more coal mine will it be all that bad? What will be the effect of changing regulations to allow more wind farms this year vs in five years time? What about incentives for electric vehicles, or does the government just let market forces ride? When electric vehicles take over, where will the road maintenance budget come from in 3 years, five years, ten or twenty years? And that doesn't even touch the surface of mitigation. On top of all that, governments also have to plan and budget for adaptation and disaster recovery. None of these things happen by magic.

I get impatient with people who say it's all too hard, or people who only want to put up barriers to achieving anything. I'd much rather see people help work out how to do the impossible than bleat and moan that the possible can't be done, and worse.

References and further reading

Zhu, Meng, Rajesh Bagchi, and Stefan J. Hock. "The mere deadline effect: Why more time might sabotage goal pursuit." Journal of Consumer Research 45, no. 5 (2018): 1068-1084. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy030

Asayama, Shin, Rob Bellamy, Oliver Geden, Warren Pearce, and Michael Hulme. "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous." (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4

It’s dangerous! - ATTP, July 2019

Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months - article by Matt McGrath, BBC, July 19

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC - IPCC Special Report