Climate change: the risks we can't afford to take. Part 1: the risks of ignoring the science

Climate change: the risks we can’t afford to take Part 1

The risks of ignoring the science

Climate change: The risks we can’t afford to take Part 1. The risks of ignoring the science

Climate change is the greatest challenge the world faces. Persuading people that this is the case is a political problem; finding regulatory and legislative solutions to stop the growth in the greenhouse gas emissions that cause it is a policy problem; but at its heart, climate change is a scientific problem. The ability of the earth to cope with these increased emissions without disastrous consequences is finite. The exact limits are unknown, but the predictions are both increasingly robust and increasingly endorsed by the world’s leading scientific experts.

The risk we face is in assuming that the action we plan to take, based on yesterday’s science, is sufficient; of thanking the scientists for their contribution and continuing on our path, ignorant of the evolving data and the possibility that even faster and bolder action might be needed.

In this, the first of five Green Alliance publications examining the risks to the implementation of the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations, Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, provides an essential reminder that turning a blind eye to the emerging science is a risk we can’t afford to take.

At last year’s G8 summit in Japan, the member nations recognised that climate change is one of the great global challenges of our time and formally espoused the goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by at least 50 per cent by 2050.This would correspond to just two tonnes of CO2 per year from each person on the planet. For comparison, the current European figure is about ten, and the Chinese level is already four.

To achieve such huge cuts without stifling economic growth, to turn around the curve of CO2 emissions well before 2050, is a huge challenge.

It is however a challenge that we have no choice but to rise to. The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set out in very clear terms the implications of failing to tackle global warming. They predicted probable global average temperature increases of between 1.8 and 4°C by 2100 (relative to the period 1980-1999). This might not seem like a lot but an increase of 4°C would lead to water shortages across much of the globe, widespread species extinctions and the disappearance of most of the world’s coral reefs, reduced productivity of cereals, particularly in the lower latitudes of the globe, leading to food shortages,

widespread coastal flooding leaving many millions of people displaced from their homes, and the spread of diseases into new areas. An increase of this magnitude would exceed the capacity of many physical and human systems to adapt.

There are still important uncertainties in regional predictions of climate change, and significant government support is required to improve the accuracy of these predictions. However, some of the

“An increase of 4°C would lead to food shortages, widespread coastal flooding leaving many millions of people displaced from their homes, and the spread of diseases into new areas.” evidence published in the past few years suggests that changes are occurring even faster than the upper limits discussed in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. For example, the annual rise in global greenhouse gas emissions has rapidly increased from 1.3 per cent per year in 1990-1999 to 3.3 per cent per year in

2000-2006, and the trajectory of emissions since 2000 is close to the upper limit of the most pessimistic emission scenario provided by the IPCC. Some scientists believe that we are now close to reaching a tipping point in the climate system which could see further acceleration of global warming.

Many scientists believe that global temperature increases must be kept to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Even then significant damage will already have been done and the world must prepare itself to deal with that. In the UK, the Climate Change Act has enshrined into law a commitment to making the 80 per cent cuts by 2050 deemed necessary to try and avert dramatic temperature increases.

This target of 80 per cent cuts will be truly challenging but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is keeping global temperature increases to no more than 2°C that is ultimately the target. We must continue to invest in climate science to ensure we have the best possible understanding of what is happening and if we need to alter the targets required to achieve the 2°C figure, then we must.

As well as investing in climate science we must also look to ways in which science can deliver the technologies required

“ We must not lose sight of the fact that it is keeping global temperature increases to no more than 2°C that is ultimately the target.”

“Some scientists believe that we are now close to reaching a tipping point in the climate system which could see further acceleration of global warming.” to decarbonise the global economy.

Realistically, without new technologies there is no chance of reaching the 80 per cent target, nor of achieving real energy security. And, of course, the involvement of not only the EU and G8, but India and China (increasingly dependent on coal) is crucial if global warming is indeed to be constrained.

The creation of the Department for Energy and Climate Change has given the opportunity for the UK to show real international leadership in developing the technologies to tackle emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK has the expertise in the science base to be able to turn investment into real breakthroughs, not only for our own energy needs but which can also be exported around the globe. To do this will require a significant increase in spending on R&D in the energy sector. We must develop environmentally sustainable

renewable energy and invest in technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

The current rate of response to growing emissions is too slow to avoid climate change. This has given rise to discussion of more radical approaches to tackling the issue which may be required if we continue to fail to stem emissions.

One such area is geo-engineering, proposals that could counteract the climatic effects of increasing greenhouse gas production.

Later this year the Royal Society will publish the results of a comprehensive study of geo-engineering which will provide an independent review of current proposals

“If we need to alter the targets needed to achieve the 2°C figure, then we must.” and consider the role that it should play in complementing and supporting mitigation and adaptation priorities.

We are at a crucial point in time.

The world will come together in Copenhagen this December to create a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. To fail now is not an option. The negotiations must be based on the most up to date science and this time around no one can

stand on the sidelines. Developed and developing countries must commit to rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping the global average temperature increase below 2°C. The UK must go to Copenhagen not just talking about leadership but with real evidence of what that leadership looks like in terms of action at home.

Green Alliance 36 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0RE Tel 020 7233 7433 Fax 020 7233 9033 ga@green-alliance.org.uk www.green-alliance.org.uk Green Alliance is a registered charity 1045395 and a company limited by guarantee 3037633

This publication forms part of Climate change: the risks we can’t afford to take, a Green Alliance publication series.

For more information visit www.green-alliance.org.uk/climatechange

Climate change: the risks we can’t afford to take Part 1: The risks of ignoring the science

Series editor: Thomas Lingard, deputy director, Green Alliance

© Green Alliance, March 2009

The views expressed in this series remain those of the individual authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Green Alliance or its funders.

Green Alliance’s 2008-09 climate change theme has been generously supported

by Shell, RWE npower and Eon.

ISBN 978-1-905869-17-6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Green Alliance.

Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purposes of private research or study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.

Green Alliance Green Alliance is an independent charity.

Our mission is to promote sustainable development by ensuring that environmental solutions are a priority in British politics. We work with representatives from the three main political parties, government, business and the NGO sector to encourage new ideas, facilitate dialogue and develop constructive solutions to environmental challenges.