Infographics to understand climate change policies

Now that many are talking about a state of climate emergency, many will search for recent info and data in an praiseworthy attempt to grasp what are the real facts surrounding our carbon emissions. I realised that it is not easy to lay your hands on reliable and easily-understandable infographics. And I believe these are a key dissemination material nowadays. These visuals aids play a role in climate awareness, including at the science-policy interface. So here you have my selection of recent infographic info for your visual delight:

Our first graph provides an overall view of how to reach net-zero carbon emissions at global scale by 2050, which is at the core of the current debate on climate-related policies.

For the lovers of reports and scientific journals, I included the set of graphs just released (Sept. 25) within the IPCC Special Report. However, while this might seem like a "doomsday" report to some, the authors were surprisingly optimistic in showing that, while the details of progressing climate change are sobering, we can do something about it. This figure from the report, pictured below, shows what life might be like in 2100 if we continue "business-as-usual," (red) or if we make major changes (blue).

I did not delve into the many open debates connected with the previous two figures. But I will take now the risk of putting on the table just one personal reflection: I find striking the limited attention paid to "Scope 3" emissions as well as to the influence of international trade and delocalisation in any carbon emissions accounting. Maybe it is just that indirect footprints are complex and could confuse the public. That is fine, as far as we address indirect emissions properly when transferring evidences into policy-making.

Finally, it is the turn for personal actions and their impact on the climate. The image below is already quite well-known, but remains valid and illustrative. I truly believe that collective/institutional actions are much more likely to help us to reach zero emissions and the needed shift in energy production, but environmentally-conscious citizens will be interested in how their daily decisions are affecting climate change. Unfortunately, statistics show that activities of higher carbon footprint (having children, flying, driving, eating meat) are increasing worldwide and that trend is unlikely to change.

Nevertheless, I believe that more and more people are considering environmental factors for individual decisions regarding housing, transport, food and waste. It is the way to go. But all that works for the environment is not necessarily vital for decarbonisation. Carbon emissions would be just one factor in our day-to-day decision-making.

I will hold the magnifying glass over foodstuffs. Unless we are talking of air freighted products, I would pay more attention to the water footprint (particularly if water embedded in that product comes from a water stressed area) than to the carbon footprint. A new book suggests that food miles are a poor indicator of a product’s total carbon footprint. What is clear, is that eating products with short and simple production chains, with a minimum amount of inputs and produced locally can hardly harm anyone. It makes me think on the traditionally marginal rainfed almond trees in the Mediterranean: local variety of almond, minimum amount of agronomic inputs, hand-picked, little processing and short distribution channel. In contrast, we have the Californian scheme: sited in deep and fertile soils, receiving much less pruning and more inputs for nutrition and crop protection, usually irrigated and part of complex value chains. Let's dig a bit deeper. Maybe each scheme has advantages depending on the context. Marginal land usually has little or no potential for profit. Differences in terms of profitability and productivity cannot be ignored if we want to support rural development. What happens if we improve both systems using sustainable agricultural practices (e.g. precision, conservation or deficit agriculture, biological pest control, recycled organic fertilisers, etc.)? The devil is in the detail!