Spring has arrived in Sweden and the trees are bursting into leaf. But these are also worrying times, as India and Pakistan suffer unprecedented heatwaves, many of us are breathing harmful air, and war is an ever-present cloud. At times like this it is easy to feel despair and forget the beauty of spring. But it is at such times that we not only need to hold onto our visions – to achieve the 1.5-degree goal and clean air for all – but also need narratives that show it is possible.
In the latest IPCC report the narrative of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) shows us what we need to do to achieve the goal of 1.5 degrees. The 1.5-degree goal narrative is called the Sustainability narrative and requires the world to shift gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasising more inclusive development that respects environmental boundaries and the management of global commons. We shift focus from an emphasis on economic growth toward a broader emphasis on human well-being and are driven by an increasing commitment to achieving sustainable development goals. The narrative guides us in the direction we need to take to reach the 1.5-degree goal, but it also paints a storyline of better overall environmental quality, human equity, and wellbeing.
Is the work of narratives something that we can adapt for our air quality goals?
The revision of the EU ambient air quality directive is underway and will decide if EU citizens will have the right to clean air in the future. AirClim will push for air quality limits that are in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organization. As you can read in this article, almost all EU residents today are forced to breathe air that is considered harmful. It impacts on our whole lives, from increased risk of being born prematurely, to a life of asthma attacks, cardio-respiratory diseases, cognitive decline, and premature death.
Part of the revision process is the Impact Assessment, which investigates the societal costs of setting different air quality limits and whether they are achievable given different narratives. In the latest stakeholder meeting we were presented with a few narratives (scenarios) for our future. The most ambitious was called the Maximum Feasible Scenario, which sounds like a very ambitious narrative, coupled with a societal transformation of putting health before profit. Unfortunately, the term “maximum feasible” is defined very narrowly, mainly based on already existing technical solutions, and in 10 to 30 years from now it still assumes solid fuels are used to heat homes, cars still run on combustion engines, and fossil fuel is used to produce energy. It ignores the possibility of reducing emissions through lifestyle changes, such as eating less meat and a modal shift to cycling and public transport. Nor does it include policy measures such as low-emission zones, congestion charges, scrappage schemes for old stoves and cars, which must be seen as fully feasible. The end result of the “maximum feasible” narrative shows that it will be hard to reach WHO air quality guidelines, and this could unfortunately be used as an argument not to attempt to strive for this ambition.
I think we need to paint a more inclusive narrative of what we can do. Let our ambition of clean air for all guide us. Let’s learn from climate science and instead use back-casting scenarios to guide us in what is needed to reach the WHO air quality guidelines. My guess is it would be a narrative that will lead us towards fewer cars in cities and more bikes and public transport. Where old cars are scrapped, and materials are reused to build electric cars for those necessary car trips. A world where our homes are insulated and use heat pumps driven by renewables, and where renewables have led to new jobs. This storyline will end with us reaching our goal of clean air for all.
Ebba Malmqvist
