Sleepwalking To The
End Of The Earth
Bush's Opposition To International
Action Remains The Greatest Obstacle
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent - UK
2-6-5
Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic
ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to acid. The world's top
scientists warned last week that dangerous climate change is taking
place today, not the day after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then
read this...
Future
historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable
world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks
of 2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have
sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed
human civilisation to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may
well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms
sounded.
Last week,
200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at Tony
Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter -
issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change
is taking place, and that time is running out.
Next week
the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control
global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is
clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.
The alarms
have been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest
Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the
official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a
UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global
warming has reached "dangerous" levels.
Then the
biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford University,
reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the
IPCC's worst predictions. And an international task force - also
reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen
Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a
decade.
Finally, the
UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before his
company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil, one
of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments
take urgent action there "will be a disaster".
But it was
last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters,
incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of
Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had been called by
the Prime Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate
change". He needed help in persuading the world to prioritise the
issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8
group of economic powers.
The
conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment,
Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from global
warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations
from top scientists and economists from every continent. These
showed that some dangerous climate change was already taking place
and that catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now
seen as likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically
simple and economically cheap, they said, provided that governments
could be persuaded to take immediate action.
About
halfway through I realised that I had been here before. In the
summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in
Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of
the Russian delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we
suddenly found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor
core.
It was all,
of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed
learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were staring
at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.
I am willing
to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their children
or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. The
conference formally concluded that climate change was "already
occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than
previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely
does justice to the sense of the meeting.
We learned
that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice has
lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters
are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather
- such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times
faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.
We learned
that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after
the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how
the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due
to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in
five years.
Worse,
leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they had
dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by
powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last
July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all
marine life (see panel).
Professor
Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, presented
new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt,
threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of
the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the
IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he
said: "I would say that this is now an awakened giant."
Professor
Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the
shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event",
was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by
2200. If it comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic
for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador
(which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up:
if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of
the warming.
The experts
at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger, mirroring the
attitude of the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to
blame. There were a few sceptics at Exeter, including Andrei
Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year
called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it
is much easier to find sceptics among media pundits in London or
neo-cons in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few
contrarian climatalogists publish little research to support their
views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.
Now a new
scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must be kept
below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe
is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping
concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change,
below 400 parts per million.
Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding
370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we
could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it
down rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the
world reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries
cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.
Economists
stressed there is little time for delay. If action is put off for a
decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20
years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.
The good
news is that it can be done with existing technology, by cutting
energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees
and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into
fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations,
and - maybe - using more nuclear energy.
The better
news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested the cost
would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years;
another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase
in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe combatting
global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in new
technologies.
The big
question is whether governments will act. President Bush's
opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle.
Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with
the best chance of persuading him to change his mind.
But so far
the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the President than
the other way round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for
the pollution reductions needed in favour of agreeing on a vague
pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.
By then it
will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will wonder -
as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First World
War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"
WATER
WARS
What could
happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources as
populations grow and rains fail.
How would
this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at present are
expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the future,
and global warming will make it worse.
How likely
is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the
next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.
DISAPPEARING NATIONS
What could
happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu - with
highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear off
the face of the Earth.
How would
this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising,
partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in
the oceans expands as it gets warmer.
How likely
is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the seas
would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands have
already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.
FLOODING
What could
happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast
areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under tens
of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.
How would
this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt. The
Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the
West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.
How likely
is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported
that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds
of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.
UNINHABITABLE EARTH
What could
happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the world's
whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much
hotter and less hospitable planet.
How would
this come about? A process involving "positive feedback" causes the
warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally tips
the climate pattern over.
How likely
is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past.
Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable
future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.
RAINFOREST FIRES
What could
happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon,
go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats
and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global
warming.
How would
this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of
the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for
sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.
How likely
is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already there
have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting palls
of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.
THE BIG
FREEZE
What could
happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf
Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.
How would
this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the North
Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the underwater
current which the Gulf Stream needs.
How likely
is it? About
evens for a
Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last week.
STARVATION
What could
happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as
rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to
desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.
How would
this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per
cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa this
century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.
How likely
is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global warming
and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will increase
in a warmer world.
ACID
OCEANS
What could
happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more acid. Coral
reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will die
off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.
How would
this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide,
the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This
forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.
How likely
is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of
the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years.
Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35 years.
DISEASE
What could
happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide every
year - reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up by
British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.
How would
this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the
disease, and hundreds of travellers return with it annually. The
insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.
How likely
is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by
2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it
is miraculous that it has not happened already.
HURRICANES
What could
happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow
even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering
of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to
come, say scientists.
How would
this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm seas, and
so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas where
at present the seas are too cool for such weather.
How likely
is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will get more
frequent and whether the process has already begun.
©2005
Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
http://news.independent.co.uk/
