Few people know the climate as well as he does. That is why we asked Frank Raes, an internationally renowned climatologist, to explain why five of the most resounding myths surrounding his field of study have no basis in fact.
"I have spent my whole life studying the climate and the way humans are changing it in a dangerous direction. So I understand, and have understood for some time, the need to do away with fossil fuels, which are the main cause of climate change. It is only in the last three or four years, however, that I have understood this not just with my head but also with my heart."
We meet Frank Raes here, on Lake Maggiore, at his new villa-museum — because after a lifetime as a scientist heading the climate change unit at the European Commission's research centre in Ispra, he has now created the Museum of Anthropocene Technology in Laveno-Mombello. Here, through artefacts and objects collected from around the world, he tells the story — and tells us — of how and why humans are creating a geological era dominated by plastic, concrete and radioactivity.
We asked him to debunk some of the most resounding myths about climate, but first he wanted to tell us about the two episodes that led him to open the museum.
"I remember a summer trip, when I went down into a valley to see a glacier: water was dripping into the cracks, touching it was like stroking a whale — a living creature that is dying. One June evening, it was the sun that frightened me. It was still there, above the city, red and far too hot. It was not normal; it filled me with dread. I think more and more about children: their future should not be worse than the present, but it could be if we are not careful and if we do not do something. And so I decided to act."
Read also: Cos'è l'Antropocene e quando la Terra è entrata in questa nuova era
Donald Trump's tweet claiming that global warming is an invention of the Chinese to favour local companies is well known. What do you think, as a scientist?
First of all, I do not know whether Trump believes what he tweets, or even knows what he tweets, because sometimes I am astonished.
Twenty or fifteen years ago it was the Chinese who were saying that climate change was a hoax invented by Europeans and Americans to favour the renewables industry that Europe and America were pushing forward — then Chinese scientists, and I know some of them, were able to convince their own government that climate change is real. Pollution in cities, which is more visible, is also a consequence linked to the burning of coal. And the Chinese government believed its own scientists, something that no longer happens in America or in certain European countries. Researchers also said there was an enormous economic opportunity in the transition towards a more renewable, more modern and cleaner energy system. And that opportunity was seized: the Chinese government is investing in renewables and wind power, and is changing everything. If Trump says climate change is a hoax, it will not be "America first" but "China first".
97 per cent of scientists around the world are unanimously agreed that climate change is of anthropogenic origin. Yet public opinion, not only in America but worldwide, believes that climate change is still a matter of scientific debate and that only some researchers accept it. Why is that?
It is nothing new that the discourse on climate change — including the scientific discourse — has been poisoned by individuals, scientists among them, who were paid by oil companies. That poisoning took place and has remained in the minds of people who perhaps do not want to believe in this great climate change, because it is a human reaction to say: "It is too big for me, so I reject it." All these things together mean that people are somewhat confused and think the debate among scientists is still ongoing. There are still major open questions in research, but we know enough to act and to invest in renewables in order to do away with fossil fuels. That much is clear.
The Earth, in its billions of years of history, has experienced natural atmospheric and climatic fluctuations: could the global warming we are recording in these decades not simply be part of the natural course of Earth's history?
The history of the Earth is very long: 4.5 billion years in which everything has happened. But for millions of years the climate has been determined by the Earth's position relative to the sun — that is, by astronomical parameters which mean that for the past 10,000 years and for the next 20,000 to 30,000 years we find ourselves in an interglacial period, characterised by a very stable climate. When humans enter the picture with greenhouse gas emissions, however, they change everything. The change we are seeing now is truly due to human action; it has nothing to do with astronomical parameters, because those have been stable for thousands of years. The changes we are seeing now are of anthropogenic origin; they are caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
When we write that there is a drought, someone on social media replies: "What do you mean, it's raining here in La Spezia, so there's no drought." New York is gripped by freezing cold and someone tweets: "Where are the global warming scientists now?" How would you respond to these people?
What we experience is the weather — the conditions here and today, which affect us directly. The climate is a different thing. Obviously the two are connected, but the climate is the average of weather conditions over a long period (30 years) and across a very large area: so one speaks of the climate of the Mediterranean, for example, of the global climate, of the climate at the end of the last millennium or the beginning of the new one. It is very different from today's weather in this place. That is why the weather here in Mombello can be very cold, while in my home country, Belgium, it may be very warm today. But on average Italy is warmer than Belgium, so there is a distinction to bear in mind between weather, which is local in character, and climate. If you look at a world map showing temperatures, you notice that the picture is not uniform: you see red zones over Greenland, you can see a cold zone in the eastern United States, above New York. This year it was very cold in New York, but very warm in Los Angeles. Scientists are increasingly able to explain these differences in weather conditions by linking them to global climate change. The fact that the Arctic is melting has an impact on the meteorology of the northern hemisphere, because it means that today's weather can be far more extreme than in the past, as a result of climate change. Today's weather and the climate of this era, however, are two concepts that must be kept separate.
"We have polluted too much: we are done for, there is nothing we can do." How do you counter this claim?
We certainly need to hurry up and start doing something — I would say almost in order to avoid the worst. Under the Paris Agreement a temperature rise of two degrees is acceptable, even 1.5 degrees is acceptable, but right now we are heading for three degrees, so we absolutely must act, each of us at our own level. There are several levels, ranging from the individual to the United Nations. I have always worked at the European and international level: the Paris Agreement, for instance, is important for setting governments and large companies in motion, but something can also be done at the individual level. We must also try to connect with the level above or below us, and that means taking an interest in politics, reading party manifestos: elections in Italy are coming up soon, let us read these manifestos and then vote for someone who will also do something about the climate, the environment, these kinds of issues.
