Gino Casassa, glaciologist and expert on climate change: "If we donʼt act, the temperature of the Earth could rise up to 4ºC until the end of the century"

Climate change is a global phenomenon. This is a revolution of consciences at a global scale for lots of scientists…

Absolutely, it is a change in paradigms and it shocks me. When I started studying geology, I was not convinced we were facing a climate change caused by people, mostly due greenhouse gas emissions. The scientist community had to convince themselves of this fact, and that was two decades ago. With this clear message, we tried to “convert” the world, but with minor voices, skeptical ones, from the geological community, enable questioning doubts hard to answer. Climate change came up as a hypothesis and it is now a proven theory. And at last, science could reach the level of responsible people who take decisions. This was exposed as never before with the protocol signature in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) which was about to fall several times -it was even fun- due a single word to be discussed (“should” for “shall”). Finally the French solved the conflict in a clever way. The big doubt is to know to what extend this agreement is binding enough. The countries in the European Union are already working on it, but the developing countries -such as Chile- have more difficulties, since there are other priorities which are more urgent than the environment. And what do you do in this situation?  

The political, business and social sectors have to respond to the challenge of the climate change. Which one of these sectors is the most difficult audience?

In my opinion, the three of them are. A great part of society does not care about the environment, and our countries still have people who throw garbage, etc. The developed countries are decades away from us in this subject. How can we improve this situation? There is only one possible answer: education. With the individual behavior, I donʼt think there would be dramatic changes if there is not a general change, and of course, with education. The public sector, with an essential role, has to create a proper regulation to protect the environment, have the support from the government, etc. All of this is happening -slowly- in Chile. Regarding the business world, they are seen as the bad ones, the ones who bring low cost technology to get more benefits, without environmental protection… This is less true every day, and in Encuentros Barcelona 2016 we saw a great example, the businessman Miquel Torres, leading a wine business that uses innovative and sustainable technologies, this is a business example to have in mind.

The poorest countries are the most damaged ones due global warming. Regarding social equity, is this another perverse reflection of the world that surrounds us?

Yes, and it is a pity. This message has been sent to the industrial world and was understood in the COP21. Therefore there was a fund of thousands of millions of dollars to help developing countries to promote clean technologies, measures of adaptation, etc. But these measures are not enough yet. What can you say to a country like Bangladesh, with thousands of inhabitants and coasts that are threatened by the sea level rise? And what about the African continent, where future wars will be about water?

Chile has the 75% of glaciers of the South American continent, great extensions of ice threatened by global warming according to what you said a long time ago. Does being a pioneer have a price in science?

Scientists have to share the results of our researches in a transparent and honest way, true to the facts. In this, you have to be brave with the results. But we have not been trained in a scientific environment and this is comfortable. We have to be honest with our own projects, with consultancies made to the government, companies, private organizations, etc. It is a curious situation because if we work for a mining business -which destroys the environment in the typical collective-, we become the devilʼs personification. If we do so with an environment consultancy, we are suspects of twisting data… In science, this is no longer done, and the few that did so were discovered because science is questionable. We are scientists, we are working, supporting, helping creating a regulation based on scientific data, and that affects companies that are related to the environment. Science should be at everyoneʼs reach for a good use, and that is another big paradigm of our work.

When it comes to matters of environment regulation, could Chile be a reference for other countries with similar problems?

Of course, Chile has to play a proactive role in this matter, it can go backwards. But Chile makes less than the 0,4% of carbon emission worldwide. Therefore, the general question would be “why changing things” The solution is not here. We are in one planet, an only environment, we are more than 7000 million people and each one of us can do something. Chile is already doing so, therefore the President Michelle Bachelet signed the Paris Agreement in the headquarters of the United Nations in New York. I am worried that the agreement is not completely binding -we donʼt know how much binding it is- and we hope to fulfil it in the best possible way and doing more than that. We have the capacity to do it. At another acting level, for example, if we think of the impact from tourism towards the environment, although there can be thousands of rules, each one of these people can destroy the environment. How can we avoid this? There is only one answer: education.

From the practical view of supporting research, what did the Nobel Peace Prize given by the Swedish Academy in 2007 mean?

The Nobel Peace Prize shared in 2007 between the IPCC and the former Vice President Al Gore marked a before and after, and that was seen with the signing of the agreements in Paris. When they told me about the prize I was on air campaign in Punta Arenas, and I was getting off a plane… Four Chilean researchers were taking part in it, in a team of 2500 scientists from around the world that had worked on the fourth assessing report of the IPCC and previous reports. The president of the Republic called us and we were welcomed at La Moneda Palace, headquarters of the government presidency in Chile… It was a great honor to take part in all that.

The sceptical thinking, however, reached the highest spheres of international politic power. Is this a worrying threat?

No, scepticism is an addition to climate change. Science is questionable and lots of times sceptical people ask questions hard to answer. But we have to do so. For example, think of the debate on the role of the sun in climate change: that discussion is already answered; we know the role of solar radiation has been small in climate and the main engine of global warming is the greenhouse effect. The effect of the volcanoes, for example, is restricted to the cooling of the climate in the Earth in periods of time not longer than two years in the last centuries. Where is the debate now regarding the sun in the future? Some Russian scientists proposed in a study that the sun would fade out and that would cause local glaciations. There is no scientific evidence, the hypothesis is not accepted but part of the community is studying it and if it is true, it will come out. “Truth will make you free”, and it works in science too. But there are discussions on the way in which it is affecting the climate. If we donʼt act, the temperature of the planet can rise up to 4ºC until the end of the century. And that would be a total disaster.

In October 2016, more than 170 countries signed an agreement in Rwanda to fight climate change. Are they working in the right direction?

This is a great agreement. The Montreal Protocol was a great example of how countries can agree to reduce and remove chlorofluorocarbons (CFCʼs) that were destroying the ozone and were affecting the Antarctica and southern regions. After signing this agreement, the scientific community had new satellite data on the gases related to the greenhouse effect. That is why Rwanda agreement was spread to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCʼs), great news becayse with HFCʼs there is a risk of half Celsius degree. This new agreement shows that scientists reached the circles of decision-taking and countries see climate change as a serious problem, like politics, health and education. Science allows us to know better about this planet with limited resources we have to take care of. And if we donʼt, we will lose control.

Explorers, adventurers and scientists are fascinated by the Polar Regions. Some of the best episodes of geographical exploration have been written on the world of ice…

Amundsen, the first to sail the North-East crossing, is one of my heroes. But the figure of Shackleton is exceptional. This year, in Punta Arenas, there was the celebration of the hundred anniversary of the crew rescue of the HMS Endurance, the ship captained by Sir Ernest Shackleton that got trapped by the Antarctic ice in 1915. It is a memorable deed, Shackleton didnʼt lose any of his men. Curiously, for us, the big forgotten hero in the story of Endurance is the revenue cutter Yelcho -with the commander Prado- the Chilean boat that rescued Shackletonʼs crew in Elephant Island. Shackleton gave up his dream of crossing the Antarctic on foot, and the one who did so was Sir Edmund Hillary in 1958, but with motorized tractors. It was during the International Geophysical Year (AGI), a great period for the knowledge of the planet, with the first precise measurements of the rise of carbon dioxide in the planet (the known Keeling curve), etc.
 

Protecting the environment, exploiting resources in a sustainable way, taking care of the planet, where is the limit of environmental conservation?

There is a movement that turned us into environmental protectionists. They say we shouldnʼt touch the forests, the wetlands, etc. I am a lover of the environment, I would like to see the coasts and mountains without human presence. But while we live in this planet, this is impossible. We have to interact with the environment, and we are more and more every day. The key is to make a good and sustainable use with human development. In the book of Genesis, they speak about “humanizing” the Earth. We have to learn how to use this verb, I mean, taking care of the world without forgetting the most important thing in this life, the human being. This is the big challenge.