First of all, the realization that it is in a hurry. Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase rapidly worldwide. At the same time, we know that emissions must be halved by 2030 if we are to have a chance to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Politics is hopeless in the aftermath.

But just as serious is the one-sidedness of the discussion. You easily get the impression that if we only reduce CO2 emissions from energy, industry and transport, we can continue to live life as usual.

But then we close our eyes to the simultaneous crisis in nature - ie the threats to many important ecosystems and the depletion of biodiversity.

Climate and nature are an inseparable couple. Most of us understand it intuitively. Yet we ignore it by our way of life.

The report from the UN Climate Research Panel, IPCC, presented today clearly shows the links between land use and climate. Climate change has already damaged nature in the form of increased frequency of drought and thus soil erosion, extreme weather, floods, forest fires, species loss, erosion of coastal areas and thawing permafrost.

At the same time, the way we use nature is central to the climate . Forests, grazing and arable land have a super important role as a carbon sink, ie to bind large amounts of carbon dioxide. About 1/3 of human annual emissions are absorbed by the vegetation on land so far.

The flip side of the coin is that when forests are decomposed - to give way to cultivation and livestock or to sell timber - or when industrial agriculture increases on soil erosion, the carbon sink is transformed into a coal source. Carbon dioxide emissions increase and climate warming is enhanced.

What we must realize is that the crisis for climate and nature are both symptoms of the same thing: that we misuse and over-utilize the resources of the earth. We create values ​​in the wrong way. The economy suffers from obvious system errors.

The UN report clearly shows the importance of food supply. Farmlands around the world are leaking coal. The increasing consumption of meat is contributing to ever higher emissions of methane. At least a third of the food produced is destroyed.

Another important issue addressed in the report is the possibility of replacing fossil raw materials with raw materials from the forest as well as burning large volumes of biomass, capturing CO2 and burying it - so-called negative emissions.

Representatives of the fossil industry, for example, usually point out negative emissions as an important part of the solution. Because then the pressure to reduce emissions will be less and the oil companies can continue as before.

My reflection is that too many people seem to think that the forest should suffice for everything. The forest itself provides good opportunities for substitution - that is, replacing fossil raw materials with green raw materials. The best thing is when products from the forest get a long life, typically by building in wood.

But the felling must not exceed the growth in the forest. And we have to remember that natural forests have great value for biodiversity. The belief that negative emissions are a major part of the solution is naive at best.

What can we do then?

Of course, we must continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation, industry and transport in every way. In addition, do everything possible to make climate use positive for:

  • to protect and plant hundreds of millions of hectares of new forest
  • to restore worn-out land and wetlands
  • to use agricultural methods that build up coal in the soil - plow less and always have the soil covered.
  • to greatly reduce food waste both in developing countries and developing countries
  • to reduce the consumption of meat and eat more vegetables
  • to replace cement, steel and plastic with bio-based materials
  • to invest in education for girls and extended family planning to curb population growth

All these measures are fully feasible . But a prerequisite, I mean, for them to be done with the speed required would be a joint action plan between primarily the US, China, Russia, Brazil and the EU.

A huge task for the new EU Commission to address.