Most newspapers around the world have covered the G8 summit which was held last week in Germany, and the agreement on climate change. Most of the articles, though, have not been very interesting, partly reflecting the fact that the G8 is not really a crucial decision making body for climate change and its statements are often very vague. However, I think this article from the UK's Independent is perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the event I've seen on the mainstream press so far. It highlights that beyond the vague wording of the final statement this agreement does represent a step forward.
The anecdote it tells in the opening paragraphs is also pretty interesting:
"Believing - like British ministers at the time - that the right-wing former East German would be far less interested in the environment than the red-green government she had toppled - he patronisingly suggested that they could forget the Kyoto protocol.
"Mr President, you are mistaken," Mrs Merkel announced, drawing herself up to her full 5ft 8in. "I am one of those responsible for the protocol." And she told him how, as her country's environment minister, she had chaired the meeting that had made the crucial breakthrough on the road to Kyoto, and then led its negotiating team when the treaty was agreed.
Over the past six months, the increasingly embattled President has had plenty of opportunity to remember his faux pas."
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Still confused on climate science? Read this.
A few days ago, on the networking site LinkedIN, someone asked the question: do you believe in climate change? Of course, climate science is not a matter of beliefs of opinions. But I thought it would be worth answering the question, especially given that many of the users of the site, who also posted their answers, seemed a bit confused by the conflicting views they hear in the media.
This is what I answered. I think it might generally be useful as a starting point for anyone who is still in doubt.
The science of climate change is now so solid, that there isn’t much of a point discussing whether or not the climate is changing and if it’s caused by humans, in the same way we wouldn’t discuss here whether smoking causes cancer or not.
Even governments like the US have accepted the reports by the world’s main authority on this issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recognise the impact humans are having on the atmosphere. What the US is still debating is what precisely to do about it.
For those who are still feeling sceptical or "agnostic" about the science – which is a normal reaction to have, given the unthinkable nature of what scientists are saying – I would recommend this page from the New Scientist magazine. These are very good for addressing some of the common concerns that were expressed in some of the previous answers.
If you want to go a bit further, you can browse this page from Real Climate, a website run by scientists, which has links to further useful sources of information:
Your question asking whether we need to tackle climate change or adapt to it is interesting. The answer is that we need both. No matter what decision politicians take now, and even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions immediately – which is clearly not possible – we would still have a certain degree of climate change because of the emissions that have gone into the atmosphere for many years, and which will continue to have an impact on the climate.
To the inevitable changes we will have to adapt, for example by adjusting our agricultural practices, making our infrastructure, housing and cities more resilient to heat waves or water shortages and resettling people who will be at risk from sea level rise. At the same time, we have to make a decision of what level of climate change – and what level of damages to nature, economies and society -we are really prepared to accept.
Temperatures could increase by the end of the century by less than 2 degrees Celsius, or by 3, 4 and up to 5-6 degrees. The temperature increase is linked to the so-called concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we (or rather, our elected politicians) will eventually agree to aim for. The difference between a 2 degree Celsius change and a 5 degree change is enormous.
Based on the state of the science, many policy makers have identified 2 degrees as a critical threshold. Although at this level changes will be very serious for some countries (especially very poor ones, that have fewer means to adapt to changes in food production, for example), they will be relatively more manageable than changes above this temperature.
Here is a link to a useful and clear illustration of what difference temperature changes mean in terms of what impacts they will have (pdf document).
That’s why keeping temperature increases below that 2 degree Celsius threshold is the official goal of the European Union, and why the US has been asked to discuss it. For the time being, the US has not committed to any specific temperature goal or greenhouse gas concentration goal. But eventually it will have to.
I personally think it is very important for LinkedIN users (and society at large, of course) to be able to discuss their government positions on this issue in a well-informed way. No matter what people do for a living, chances are that at some point virtually everybody have to put in practice measures to reduce emissions, or to adapt to changes, both in their professional and personal life.
These issues are rapidly moving away from being “just for the specialists” to something that affects everyone – and rightly so. For those who have children, it may also be useful to try to think about what a temperature change of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 degrees will really mean for them.
This is what I answered. I think it might generally be useful as a starting point for anyone who is still in doubt.
The science of climate change is now so solid, that there isn’t much of a point discussing whether or not the climate is changing and if it’s caused by humans, in the same way we wouldn’t discuss here whether smoking causes cancer or not.
Even governments like the US have accepted the reports by the world’s main authority on this issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and recognise the impact humans are having on the atmosphere. What the US is still debating is what precisely to do about it.
For those who are still feeling sceptical or "agnostic" about the science – which is a normal reaction to have, given the unthinkable nature of what scientists are saying – I would recommend this page from the New Scientist magazine. These are very good for addressing some of the common concerns that were expressed in some of the previous answers.
If you want to go a bit further, you can browse this page from Real Climate, a website run by scientists, which has links to further useful sources of information:
Your question asking whether we need to tackle climate change or adapt to it is interesting. The answer is that we need both. No matter what decision politicians take now, and even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions immediately – which is clearly not possible – we would still have a certain degree of climate change because of the emissions that have gone into the atmosphere for many years, and which will continue to have an impact on the climate.
To the inevitable changes we will have to adapt, for example by adjusting our agricultural practices, making our infrastructure, housing and cities more resilient to heat waves or water shortages and resettling people who will be at risk from sea level rise. At the same time, we have to make a decision of what level of climate change – and what level of damages to nature, economies and society -we are really prepared to accept.
Temperatures could increase by the end of the century by less than 2 degrees Celsius, or by 3, 4 and up to 5-6 degrees. The temperature increase is linked to the so-called concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we (or rather, our elected politicians) will eventually agree to aim for. The difference between a 2 degree Celsius change and a 5 degree change is enormous.
Based on the state of the science, many policy makers have identified 2 degrees as a critical threshold. Although at this level changes will be very serious for some countries (especially very poor ones, that have fewer means to adapt to changes in food production, for example), they will be relatively more manageable than changes above this temperature.
Here is a link to a useful and clear illustration of what difference temperature changes mean in terms of what impacts they will have (pdf document).
That’s why keeping temperature increases below that 2 degree Celsius threshold is the official goal of the European Union, and why the US has been asked to discuss it. For the time being, the US has not committed to any specific temperature goal or greenhouse gas concentration goal. But eventually it will have to.
I personally think it is very important for LinkedIN users (and society at large, of course) to be able to discuss their government positions on this issue in a well-informed way. No matter what people do for a living, chances are that at some point virtually everybody have to put in practice measures to reduce emissions, or to adapt to changes, both in their professional and personal life.
These issues are rapidly moving away from being “just for the specialists” to something that affects everyone – and rightly so. For those who have children, it may also be useful to try to think about what a temperature change of 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 degrees will really mean for them.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jonathon Porritt launches new blog
Prominent UK environmental campaigner and director of the Sustainable Development Commission Jonathon Porritt has launched a new blog. It covers various topics, including climate change. Click on the title of this entry, which links to the blog.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Scientists issue first batch of key climate report
I think everybody - no matter what walk of life or profession - should try to read the summaries for policy makers of the reports issues by the world’s scientific authority on climate change - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed and published scientific and technical literature. No matter what people do, where they live, what political beliefs they have - one day they will be affected by climate change in their professional and personal life. However, for anybody who is really too busy to do so, I am providing a "summary of the summary". This is the modified and shortened version of an article I've published on a business publication.
A milestone in climate science?
A new report issued earlier this month by the IPCC said the scientific community is at least 90% certain humans are responsible for the problem. The Panel also made fresh predictions and clarified many uncertainties. The key issue now is whether a crucial temperature threshold risks being breached – and what to do about it.
This report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR), issued in 2001. The IPCC Working Group 1 report- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - is part of the Fourth Assessment Report. It assesses the latest scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.
Based on recent observations and measurements, scientists now say humans are responsible for climate change with at least 90% certainty – higher than in the TAR, which placed it at 66%. Scientists have also improved their ability to predict future climate change. They adjusted predictions for temperature rises over this century and said the rate of warming has recently increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.
Confidence in regional climate change projections has also improved, thanks to new models and computer technology. Scientists have now clarified a number of issues which had been left partly unresolved in the TAR. For example, both volcanic eruptions and man-made aerosols have had a relative cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming that would have otherwise been observed.
There are now fewer uncertainties on so-called feedbacks – effects of climate change which can accelerate or decelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists clarified that increased temperatures will cause a decay of organic matter rather than speeding plant growth. Some had hoped increased plant growth would slow down climate change. Some economists had argued this might be a positive impact of climate change, which could potentially increase agricultural yields in parts of the world. However, scientists now say plants and soils will absorb less CO2 as the world warms. It is now thought that this may accelerate the rate of warming because a larger fraction of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere, and the magnitude of climate change caused by a given level of emissions will be larger than previously thought.
In reaction to the report, the European Commission said that without more action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, after increasing by over 0.7°C in the past 100 years. “Even the low end of this range would take the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to above 2°C, the level at which there could be irreversible and possibly catastrophic consequences,” the Commission said in a statement.
European Union (EU) climate change policy is based on a target agreed by member countries to keep global temperature increases below a 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Many scientists consider this limit to be crucial for avoiding the most catastrophic and irreversible climate change impacts.
The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner told a press conferencel. “It is critical that we look at the report not only as a milestone but truly as a moment where the focus shifts from whether climate change is linked to human activities – to what on earth are we going to do about it,” he said.
“Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It published previous comprehensive reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The working group 1 report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert and government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line-by-line during the course of a week-long meeting in Paris, before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. The IPCC will issue the two other reports later this year.
A milestone in climate science?
A new report issued earlier this month by the IPCC said the scientific community is at least 90% certain humans are responsible for the problem. The Panel also made fresh predictions and clarified many uncertainties. The key issue now is whether a crucial temperature threshold risks being breached – and what to do about it.
This report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR), issued in 2001. The IPCC Working Group 1 report- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - is part of the Fourth Assessment Report. It assesses the latest scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.
Based on recent observations and measurements, scientists now say humans are responsible for climate change with at least 90% certainty – higher than in the TAR, which placed it at 66%. Scientists have also improved their ability to predict future climate change. They adjusted predictions for temperature rises over this century and said the rate of warming has recently increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.
Confidence in regional climate change projections has also improved, thanks to new models and computer technology. Scientists have now clarified a number of issues which had been left partly unresolved in the TAR. For example, both volcanic eruptions and man-made aerosols have had a relative cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming that would have otherwise been observed.
There are now fewer uncertainties on so-called feedbacks – effects of climate change which can accelerate or decelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists clarified that increased temperatures will cause a decay of organic matter rather than speeding plant growth. Some had hoped increased plant growth would slow down climate change. Some economists had argued this might be a positive impact of climate change, which could potentially increase agricultural yields in parts of the world. However, scientists now say plants and soils will absorb less CO2 as the world warms. It is now thought that this may accelerate the rate of warming because a larger fraction of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere, and the magnitude of climate change caused by a given level of emissions will be larger than previously thought.
In reaction to the report, the European Commission said that without more action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, after increasing by over 0.7°C in the past 100 years. “Even the low end of this range would take the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to above 2°C, the level at which there could be irreversible and possibly catastrophic consequences,” the Commission said in a statement.
European Union (EU) climate change policy is based on a target agreed by member countries to keep global temperature increases below a 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Many scientists consider this limit to be crucial for avoiding the most catastrophic and irreversible climate change impacts.
The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner told a press conferencel. “It is critical that we look at the report not only as a milestone but truly as a moment where the focus shifts from whether climate change is linked to human activities – to what on earth are we going to do about it,” he said.
“Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It published previous comprehensive reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The working group 1 report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert and government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line-by-line during the course of a week-long meeting in Paris, before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. The IPCC will issue the two other reports later this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
