The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which the countries signed a decade ago to curb global warming, and China’s disengagement from climate measures are estimated to lead to a 5 to 6 degree rise in temperatures by 2100 compared to normal levels. As “THEMA” academic Christos Zerefos explains, there will be people who cannot breathe, everyone will have to live under an air conditioner to survive, and the impact on other sectors will be huge. Animals and plants will suffer irreversible changes, and ecosystems will slowly be wiped out.

The general secretary of the Academy of Athens and national spokesman on climate change also responds to climate crisis deniers whose theories claim that global temperatures follow cycles that open and close. “There have indeed been very warm periods in the past, but these changes have been over many thousands of years. Now the changes we are seeing are occurring over a very few years. This cyclical theory is supported by the deniers of anthropogenic influence on climate, the so-called ‘deniers’. But they forget that these cycles are due to astronomical phenomena over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

The distinguished scientist also comments scathingly on the planetary leader’s stance on the issue of global warming, leading to America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to address global warming. As he says, “the US has fallen into major contradictions, on the one hand removing the term ‘climate change’ from public documents and throwing itself into fossil fuel investments with a vengeance, and on the other hand taking an interest in rare earths.” This shows, according to Zerefo, that they want to transform their fuel mix to a more electric mix, pointing out that it would be an oxymoron if they didn’t when President Trump’s key adviser and cabinet minister isIlon Musk (owner of Tesla), the man who has invested a large part of his fortune in batteries and electric cars.

However, this ambiguity of America poses a major challenge to the whole world, as Europe is only 7% of greenhouse gas emitters, while the US and China are the biggest “disobedient” polluters. With only Europe in the battle to tackle greenhouse gases, the planet is not saved! As Mr. Zerefos says, Donald Trump seems to be playing with the climate in terms of gambling, and this kind of game we don’t know where it can lead. Scientists, he points out in his interview, have made sure that the Paris Agreement is backed by solid scientific evidence. As the eminent academic states, today science is moving towards nuclear fusion, an attempt to imitate the Sun in terms of energy production.

Marianna Janne: After a mild and rainy winter, we are heading full steam ahead into summer. What awaits us in terms of temperatures?

Christos Zerefos: In the last five years we have had many record-breaking sea and atmospheric temperatures both in the Mediterranean and globally. The trends are predicted to develop the same, which means that 2025 will also be a warm year, but I cannot say whether it will be warmer than 2024. There is a small hope that because we have had a lot of rain so far, we will not have the much increased risk of forest fires, which will be shown by whether the ground moisture continues to be low in March and April. We can see the development of climate destabilisation everywhere, and we cannot turn back unless we take the measures that we have agreed in the Paris Agreement, which unfortunately are being overturned by some other countries, such as the United States of America, which has backed out for the second time. The Paris Agreement has not come out of the ‘belly’ of the people, but after calculations. Models show that to stabilise the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, by 2035 we will have to get rid of 80% of fossil fuels 2035 and put in their place alternative Renewable Energy Sources. Whether for heating, cooling, transport, or industrial production. In a recent study we have shown that there are enough RES in the European Union to get rid of 80% of the burning of fossil fuels. The point is that from 2030 to 2050, efforts will have to be made globally to get rid of fossil fuels completely.

M.J.: What changes have taken place in recent years in our country in areas such as agriculture, fisheries, and sea level? How worrying is the situation?

What are the changes in the situation?

What is the extent of the situation?
G.Z.: From Larissa to about Mani the region is already in a semi-arid state. The consequences that came after 1988 were very intense. Also, the sea has begun to increase its temperature and resemble that of Alexandria, which contributes to the intensity of extreme events such as “Daniel” and “Janus”. In agriculture, there is a serious problem of water scarcity, as the groundwater level has fallen by hundreds of metres and we have to go full steam ahead with desalination. One thing is clear: if we do not follow the science, our country will have to bear many billions of euros in damages due to extreme events. On the contrary, if we adapt and follow carbonisation, we will avoid these costs, which are estimated at over EUR 200 to 300 billion over the next 50 years. Globally, the cost is estimated at $130,000 billion.

MJ: You mentioned the US stance, which is a blow to efforts to stop global warming. But we also saw President Macron a few days ago talking about a “nuclear umbrella”. Which direction are we heading in?

G.Z.: Nuclear still has a role to play in protecting Europe from the incursions of other countries that have expansionist policies. But I think the US president is giving examples of “card playing” with his attitude, i.e., he believes that every political move or decision is based on some trial and error. This means that we test, like playing a game of cards, the reactions of our fellow players and accordingly back down or return to the table. What I am saying is based on contradictions, but also on the decisions taken, for example, with tariffs, which are imposed one day and lifted the next. The President’s proposals and decisions show complex thinking, a gamble! However, as scientists, we have made sure that the Paris Agreement is based on sound scientific evidence and on the need for complete freedom from fossil fuels.

M.J.: But what happens if a country, such as China or the United States of America, continues to resist this effort and does not take steps to cure and correct the problems created by the climate crisis?

This situation is very worrying because Europe is only 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It alone is not enough to save the planet. We can say that it is possible to delay the damage and ensure a decade of relatively normal living. Right now in America, there is a great numbing effect. Deleting the term “climate crisis” from public documents is not desirable, but it seems, from what I read, to be happening. But I have great reservations about what Trump will ultimately do, as through his interest in rare earths he seems to want to support battery technology. That means he wants to transform the fuel mix to a more electric mix. Besides, it would be an oxymoronic figure not to do so, since his key advisor and the new US administration, Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, has staked much of his vast fortune on batteries and electric cars. All this creates a contradiction. I think we are no longer on the chessboard, because there are two players on it. We are back to what I was saying before, that is, the card games where two people may be playing against many more, 100 or even 200, which is all the countries in the world. So one could imagine such games, which I don’t know where they will lead. But what I do know is that right now, science is moving forward – and it is moving forward in fusion, that is, in an attempt to imitate the Sun in terms of energy production.

M.J.: It sounds very interesting. But what good will the Sun be to us?

H.G.: The Sun, as we all know, is a superheated body made of gases and basically hydrogen. The Sun burns its hydrogen and converts it into helium. This process of combustion is the phenomenon of fusion. If we succeed in making “little Suns”, then these “Suns” will create new sources of energy without the use of nuclear waste produced by nuclear reactors. In 2018, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two French scientists (one of whom is also an honorary member of the Academy of Athens) who built a “super” laser, which is a technology that we all know has great applications in Health, Medicine, and Research. If we bombard nuclear waste with this laser, which has a very high intensity, that lives for thousands of years and remains radioactive, we change its form and turn it into fluorine, which is a harmless waste. So instead of the nuclear waste surviving for thousands of years and being dangerous, it becomes harmless by this method, and within 2 to 3 hours, the radioactivity is extinguished. If we achieve this, we will also go to the use of nuclear energy, but now using the fusion method.

This process has started in the laboratory. Is the methodology being worked out?

This work has already started, and the methodology is being developed.
G.G.: I know that in France they are experimenting intensively, as well as in other laboratories around the world, but these are also military secrets, so we don’t know more about these investigations.

M.J.: If we continue to go the way we are going today, when can we say that the planet will return to where it was in previous years?

When will we be able to say if we are back to where we are today?
H.G.: It will take us many years to do so. It is not instantly curable. The disease that the planet has, which we define by the terms “climate crisis”, “global warming,” or “fever”, will take decades to fix, and we will see what the alternative ideas and scenarios are for moving forward. In the beginning the Germans had proposed hydrogen as a fuel, but also as a mechanism to store the extra energy we get in the morning and use it at night when it is not windy. Generally speaking, there are pros and cons to every new proposal that comes to the table. But the planet is not yet balanced enough to say that we have the solution in our hands, and from tomorrow, decisions are being taken at the Community or global level, and we are following the guidelines. There are several renewable sources. At least Europe can be 80% independent of fossil fuels because we have shown that we can replace them with renewables by 2030. Many other countries are also already independent. But with the political game of ambiguity that the US is playing no one can make any estimates because there are no final decisions.

M.J.: In your view, where might the US backsliding take us?

H.G.: America’s backsliding will lead in 2100 to a planet different from the one we have today. When we say “heat wave,” we will mean 5 to 6 degrees above normal. Today it’s 1.5 degrees. There will be people who will not be able to breathe, and we will all have to live with air conditioning to survive. We’re talking about a completely different planet. Animals and plants will suffer irreversible changes, while ecosystems will slowly be wiped out one by one. It will be a very bad picture of the planet if we do nothing. This has been proven by thousands of scientific studies and papers.

M.J.: In addition to the US playing its own game with climate change, there are global warming deniers who argue that the temperatures we have been experiencing in recent years have been cycling, with sometimes cold and sometimes very hot seasons, and at some point the cycle will close and we will return to normal levels. What is your response to them?

G.Z.: There have indeed been very warm periods in the past, but these changes have evolved over many thousands of years. Now the changes we are seeing are occurring over a few decades. This cyclical theory is supported by the deniers of anthropogenic influence on climate, the so-called “deniers”. But they forget that these cycles are due to astronomical phenomena over tens and hundreds of thousands of years and that they are related to how close the Earth is to the Sun or how far away. They therefore have nothing to do with the change in the composition of the atmosphere to which the warming is due and which is caused by carbon dioxide. This gas does not allow the Earth to cool towards space, it upsets its equilibrium. The levels of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas increases we are seeing in Antarctica have not been seen before, according to measurements, for at least the past 1.5 million years. We are living in a very limited period – about 100 years – after the Industrial Revolution, which we believe was one of the reasons greenhouse gas concentrations took off. The level of concentrations we are seeing in the last 30 years is unprecedented in the history of our planet.

M.J.: Greece has invested in the renewable energy sector in recent years. But we see that it is also taking a second look at expanding into fossil fuels and mining. How do you assess this shift?
What do you think of this shift?
We are now looking at other energy sources, but we are also looking at renewable energies, but we are now looking at the use of renewable energies in other sectors.

G.Z.: Our country is endowed with renewable energy sources and has exploited them to a very large extent. I even believe that it can become even more independent. As far as fossil fuel projects are concerned, since the country considers itself to have gas and oil and its neighbours are selling the same, it is right to expand into hydrocarbons. Let’s not forget that the use of oil and gas will continue to exist for a few more decades. So it’s good to use the money we get from fossil fuel investments to invest in renewables and green applications. Those who argue otherwise don’t know!