Nature 4 06 2020

408 Pages·2020·36.95 MB·English

By delaying
emissions
reductions,
all countries
have done
is borrow
against the
planet’s
future.”

package will, however, need to be agreed by the 27 member
states and the European Parliament.
At the same time, China announced that, for the first
time in decades, it will not set a target for economic growth.
Not setting such a target will enable policymakers to prior-
itize innovative ideas for improving the environment and
well-being, which can be difficult to do when a country’s
principal policy focus is economic growth.
When it comes to the actual climate talks, waiting
another year does have one potential advantage. Many
countries were unlikely to step up with ambitious climate
plans this year, even before the COVID-19 crisis compli-
cated matters. This is due, in part, to the uncertainty sur-
rounding the United States’ intentions following President
Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris agreement.
The US position is likely to become more predictable after
US voters have delivered their verdict in the presidential
election in November.
If the Democrat candidate Joe Biden is elected, the United
States is expected to rejoin the Paris accord and restore
a more evidence-based approach to its climate-change
decision-making. It will also revert to engaging more con-
structively with other countries. But if Trump is re-elected,
that will signal to other countries — especially those in the
European Union — that they should organize and press for-
wards with ambitious climate targets and funding pledges
independently of the United States.
The latter scenario is likely to present the UK government
with some challenges as it hosts COP26, along with next
year’s meeting of the Group of Seven large industrialized
countries. As the United Kingdom exits the EU, it is loos-
ening its ties to the EU’s many collective decision-making
structures. At the same time, the government is in active
talks with the United States, seeking a closer relationship
in areas including trade and research.

Policy dilemma

On climate policy, the United Kingdom could find itself
trapped between a White House urging it to pay due
attention to the US perspective, and most other coun-
tries, which will be advocating for action on the basis of
the Paris consensus. British climate negotiators must do
what is best for the planet, and act according to the best
available evidence.
Five years ago, countries came together in Paris on a
new agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. They
knew then that their pledges fell short of what was needed,
and agreed to return to the table this year with new com-
mitments. A further delay of a year gives countries more
time to plan for more ambitious reductions. It also gives
policymakers more time to think strategically as they work
to bolster jobs, improve livelihoods and, ultimately, build
more-resilient economic systems.
The pressure is on and countries must continue to act
with urgency. They might think that they have carved out
an extra year to prepare for COP26, but, in practice, there
is no extra time. The climate clock is still ticking and by
delaying emissions reductions, all countries have done is
borrow against the planet’s future.

Delaying COP26
is not a reason to
delay climate action

Coronavirus has pushed climate talks
back by a year. But action on global
warming must not be postponed.
T

he first Conference of the Parties under the
United Nations climate convention took place
in Berlin a quarter of a century ago. By today’s
standards, it was a relatively modest affair,
involving just a few thousand people, includ-
ing government officials, scientists, environmentalists
and journalists. By contrast, the event scheduled for this
year in Glasgow, UK — the 26th Conference of the Parties
(COP26) — would have attracted some 30,000 participants.
But it has had to be postponed because of the coronavirus
outbreak. Last week, we learnt that the delay will last for a
year, with COP26 now due to take place in November 2021.
The decision to delay was unavoidable: a COP needs rep-
resentatives of all countries to be present, which would
not have been possible if those countries were at different
stages of virus transmission and lockdowns. In Glasgow,
the conference venue has been temporarily converted
to a COVID-19 field hospital. An online meeting was con-
sidered, but rejected. Delegates rightly concluded that
complex negotiations cannot be conducted using available
virtual-meeting technologies.
But delay has risks, and principal among them is slower
progress in the struggle against climate change. By the time
COP26 was originally scheduled to begin, countries were
expected to propose new commitments to bring emissions
to net zero. And, at the conference, extra finance for less-
wealthy countries was due to be proposed, making good
on decades of promises that have not been kept.
The role of carbon markets was also to be discussed,
along with nations’ responsibility for damages caused
by global warming. The meeting had a full agenda, and a
delay of a year will have consequences — ultimately making
it even harder to limit temperature increases to 1.5–2°C
above pre-industrial levels, the main goal of the 2015 Paris
climate agreement.
But countries do not need to wait until COP26 to take
further action. Indeed, there are signs that some are plan-
ning to focus more public investments on green infrastruc-
ture and clean energy, rather than doubling down on a past
marked by polluting fossil fuels. It is the least they can do.
Last week, the European Commission unveiled propos-
als for a €750-billion (US$833-billion) post-coronavirus
funding package that includes measures to accelerate the
adoption of renewable energy technologies as part of a
commitment to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. The

Nature | Vol 582 | 4 June 2020 | 7

The international journal of science / 4 June 2020

©

2020

Springer

Nature

Lim
ited.

All

rights

reserved.

Find a new
hashtag —
something
that will
resonate
with millions
around the
world.”

his intention to compete with much larger and more-
established corporations in space technology. Arguably,
SpaceX’s most important innovation has been to engineer
the Falcon rocket so that it can be reused after launch. Once
it has jettisoned its payload, the Falcon returns to Earth and
lands, vertically, which other rockets do not do.
Although attention is understandably focused on the
launch and docking, the reason for the SpaceX mission to
the ISS should not be forgotten — the astronauts’ mission
is ultimately in the service of science and international
research cooperation. Behnken and Hurley will take part
in installing a new hardware platform called Bartolomeo,
designed by the European Space Agency and Airbus to
enable the ISS to host extra science experiments from
teams from all over the world.
When big launches grab everyone’s attention, it is hard
for research to get a hearing. Earlier this year, two NASA
astronauts, Christina Koch and Jessica Meir, completed a
challenging upgrade of a fundamental physics experiment
on the station, the Cold Atom Laboratory — doing in zero
gravity what physicists on Earth might have struggled to
do. And, last month, the agency’s Human Research Program
announced plans for extended flights to the ISS, designed
to simulate the effects on the human body of a journey
to Mars.

A global endeavour

It’s unfortunate that those following the weekend’s events
did not see or hear much about the ISS’s research contri-
butions, or the fact that astronauts have visited the space
station from 19 nations — among them Malaysia, the United
Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan. They did, however, see
SpaceX and NASA promote the #LaunchAmerica hashtag,
and they heard NASA’s Administrator Jim Bridenstine say:
“It’s been nine years since we’ve launched American astro-
nauts on American rockets from American soil.”
New space launches — regardless of their country of
origin — are often accompanied by a heavy display of
national symbols. But it would have been much more
powerful, and more uplifting, had the launch also recog-
nized the contributions made by other nations, including
Russia, which has been reliably carrying astronauts to the
ISS all this time.
From Yuri Gagarin’s orbit of Earth in 1961 to the Moon
landings of 1969, space has always been an arena of fierce
superpower competition — and newer players, not least
China, have since come onto the scene. But, in space
research, such competition has not prevented nations
from cooperating, and that needs to be recognized and
celebrated.
There is plenty of opportunity to do so. SpaceX will make
its next run to the ISS as early as August. Bridenstine and
Musk should use this next mission to demonstrate that
space exploration and research are global. At the very
least, they should find a new hashtag — something that will
resonate with the millions around the world who watched
the weekend’s launch with awe, and will inspire them to
join the next generation of researchers, engineers and
astronauts.

SpaceX launch will
boost International
Space Station

NASA’s partnership with SpaceX and its
founder Elon Musk should recognize the global
nature of space exploration and research.
O

n 30 May, tens of millions of space enthusi-
asts were glued to their screens as SpaceX’s
Dragon capsule soared into the air above
Cape Canaveral, Florida, aboard a Falcon 9
rocket. The following day, as the capsule
docked with the International Space Station (ISS), some
422 kilometres above China’s border with Mongolia,
Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley made history as the
first astronauts to ride a commercial craft into orbit.
This development — a decade in the planning — is
undoubtedly an achievement for NASA, and for Space X
and its reusable rockets. But it is equally a boost for space
science and innovation, and especially the enduring value
of global cooperation in space research and technology.
Amid the jubilation, this aspect of the achievement should
be highlighted more.
For NASA, the launch means, among other things, some
more money in the bank. Since 2011, when the agency
retired the Space Shuttle, NASA has paid Russia up to
US$90 million per person to ferry crews to the ISS aboard
the Soyuz craft. Seats on the SpaceX capsule are around
two-thirds of this cost, which means that NASA can channel
the savings into other priorities, including its ambition to
return astronauts to the Moon by 2024.
The weekend’s launch also consolidates the position of
SpaceX, a company that has mushroomed from start-up
to major aerospace player in 18 years. Corporations have
been entwined with national space agencies from early on
— Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) famously designed
and built the lunar module that carried the Apollo astro-
nauts to the Moon’s surface. More recently, other compa-
nies have flown humans to space. Virgin Galactic, founded
by entrepreneur Richard Branson, has pulled off sub-or-
bital flights and is planning to offer short trips for passen-
gers to experience a few minutes of weightlessness before
returning to Earth. But SpaceX has succeeded at the more
ambitious goal of carrying people all the way into orbit.
The company has achieved this through nimbleness, an
outstanding team of engineers and product designers, and
the determination of its founder, Elon Musk. Musk — who is
never far from controversy — has had a hand in disrupting
two established industries, first as one of the early develop-
ers of online payment systems such as PayPal, and later as
chief executive of Tesla, the electric-vehicle manufacturer.
But few thought he would succeed when he announced

8 | Nature | Vol 582 | 4 June 2020

Editorials

©
2020
SpringerNatureLim
ited.Allrightsreserved.

QQ Magazine&Ebook Group: 970508760

By Diane Coyle

Diane Coyle is
Bennett Professor
of Public Policy at
the University of
Cambridge, UK, and
senior independent
member of the
United Kingdom’s
Economic and Social
Research Council.
e-mail: