Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Failure of Climate Summit Would Herald Global Catastrophe: 3.5°
The world is heading for the next major climate change conference in Cancun later this year on course for global warming of up to 3.5C in the coming century, a series of scientific analyses suggest. The failure of last December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen means that cuts in carbon emissions pledged by the international community will not be enough to keep the anticipated warming within safe limits.
Coastal megacities like Shanghai, and low-lying regions of countries such as Pakistan (above) are most at risk from rising sea levels. (AP) Two analyses of the Copenhagen Accord and its pledges, by Dr Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute, and by the Climate Action Tracker website, suggest that, with the cuts that are currently promised under Copenhagen, the world will still warm by 3.5C by 2100. Such a rise would be likely to have disastrous effects on agricultural production, water availability, natural ecosystems and sea-level rise across the world, producing tens of millions of refugees.
A month ago, in its annual State of the Climate report, published in conjunction with the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) listed 10 separate indicators of a warming planet, seven of them rising - ranging from air temperature over land and humidity to sea level - and three of them declining: Arctic sea-ice, glaciers, and spring snow cover. "The scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable," NOAA said.
Cancun, or "COP 16" as it is officially known, will again see ministers and officials from nearly 200 nations grapple with the politics of global warming, but no one thinks they will be able to close a widening breach in the world's defences against dangerously rising temperatures - the "gigatonne gap".
A gigatonne is a billion tonnes of carbon, and the emissions cuts currently promised by the nations of the world in the Copenhagen Accord - the last-minute agreement patched together by leaders after the conference in the Danish capital all but collapsed - will mean that, by 2020, when global emissions should be on a firmly downward trend, they will be several gigatonnes too high to limit the warming to C above the pre-industrial level. This is widely considered the most that human society can stand without serious consequences.
Yet the international community does not seem any closer to consensus on the need to make further reductions in carbon and at Cancun, which takes place from 29 November to 10 December, it is at best side issues on which any progress will be made.
Today, the Coalition's Climate Change Secretary, the Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne, will travel to Berlin to discuss strengthening the EU climate target in advance of the Cancun meeting from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, with his German and French counterparts, Norbert Röttgen and Jean-Louis Borloo.
Mr Huhne told The Independent: "There's hard work ahead to maintain and build on the level of commitment embodied in the Copenhagen Accord and to rebuild the credibility of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
"We in the EU still need to finalise our positions in advance of COP 16, but I think there's a real chance the negotiations could take important steps forward in Cancun, in particular to implement parts of what was agreed in Copenhagen and to work towards the global deal the world needs."
He added: "It's the UK's view - and one shared by my French and German counterparts - that the EU should raise its ambition and that the economic case for doing so stacks up.
"Cutting emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 would be a game-changer in shifting investment into new clean technologies, generating jobs and growth in supply chains across our economies. The great risk for Europe is in waking up late to these opportunities and losing out to other major blocs who are already eyeing up market share."
It is hard to exaggerate the dire effect which the failure at Copenhagen has had both on the climate change negotiating process itself, and on the belief of those involved that an effective climate deal might be possible.
A year ago, many environmentalists, scientists and politicians genuinely thought that the meeting in Denmark might produce a binding agreement to cut global CO2 by the 25-40 per cent, by 2020, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated is necessary to keep the warming to below C.
Today that optimism has vanished. The Danish meeting foundered on the disagreement between the developed countries and the developing nations over who should do how much, and when, in cutting emissions; the major point of disagreement was the Kyoto Protocol, the current treaty, which makes developed countries do a lot, and developing nations not very much.
The Kyoto treaty runs out at the end of 2012 and the developing nations, led by China and India, wanted it renewed, while developed countries, including Britain and the rest of the EU, want a completely new treaty to share out the carbon-cutting burden.
At Copenhagen last December, world leaders cobbled together an agreement which ended up devoid of any binding carbon emissions targets (but did recognise the need to stay under C for the first time). Instead of the legally-binding treaty which had been hoped for, nations were invited to "register" voluntary targets, saying by how much they thought they could cut their CO2 by 2020.
Britain is part of the EU target of a 20 per cent cut, on a 1990 baseline, which may be raised before Cancun to 30 per cent. (Britain's own domestic target is one of the highest, to cut CO2 by 34 per cent by 2020.) Other targets include 25 per cent for Japan, Australia by 5 to 25 per cent and the US by 17 per cent on a 2005 baseline - although the legislation to achieve it is firmly stalled in the Senate. Among the developing nations, China has promised to reduce the energy intensity of its economy by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020.
Various analyses of all these pledges suggest they amount to cuts of the global CO2 total of between 11 and 19 per cent by 2020, instead of the 25 to 40 per cent which the IPCC says is needed. This can also be expressed in real amounts of CO2, of which the world is currently emitting annually about 45 gigatonnes - 45 billion tonnes of carbon.
If the world continues with these levels of emissions it is thought this will increase to between 51 and 55 gigatonnes by 2020. Lord Stern of Brentford, author of a landmark report on the economics of climate change, has calculated that if, instead, global CO2 could be cut back to 44 gigatonnes by 2020, the world would be on a credible path to stay below a rise of C. Yet analysis suggests the Copenhagen Accord pledges will leave the figure at 48-49 billion tonnes - the gigatonne gap which Cancun is not going to close.
What the conference may do is agree the architecture for the new major climate funds to help developing countries which were agreed in Denmark - a "fast-start" fund of $30bn (£19.4bn) per year in new money for the years 2010-12, and a fund of $100bn annually to be set up by 2020.
If there are no further breakdowns, it is possible that the meeting may at least restore faith in the UN climate process. "Nobody thinks Cancun will be a big-bang moment," said Keith Allott, head of climate change for the World Wide Fund for Nature. "What the world needs to do is put some wheels back on the climate truck."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

20 Comments so far
Show AllC'mon People--
No rational person should think that setting these so-called "targets" will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enough to avoid disastrous temperature rises which are in line to surpass climate "tipping points" within the next twenty years (or less).
Increases in emissions from China and India alone, without radical changes in how they (and we) produce electricity, to which they feel "entitled", will doom existing and future generations of humans.
Our ONLY possibility to save the planet for our children will be to provide alternatives for electricity generation which are not only CHEAPER THAN the means they are using now, but show the ability to be SUSTAINABLE in the decades, centuries, and millenia to come.
This isn't to conclude that other changes is how energy is produced utilized aren't needed.
A technology to accomplish this has already been invented and verified to be both robust and sustainable by means of simple calculations involving the earth's energy balance.
Educate yourselves and demand (or beg) that funds be provided to support deployment of the next stage as well as future stages of development of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine.
http://vortexengine.ca
The energy resources it "consumes" (based on residual solar) are not only limitless--their use actually will result in an IMMEDIATE local cooling, as well as countless "collateral benefits" such as ventilation of urban areas where asthma in children due to "smog" is common.
We're talking about a minuscule allocation of monetary resources here (~ $100 MM), and a timetable of just two to three years for complete verification of its predicted potential.
What is there to lose in going forward with this project?
What is there to lose in NOT going forward with it?
You do the "risk/benefit" analysis--the outcome isn't even in doubt.
Cancun will bring the same, perhaps even less result than Copenhagen did. Take it to the bank.
Scientific arguments, model predictions, dire forecasts will not trump political reality and thats the simple truth. Thats why Cancun will be a non-event.
It's time to expect nothing to come of Cancun. All over the world, the entrenched energy companies have set up all of their their personal governments to fight for them, and to smile just before they smack any 350 people in the face.
Has anyone tried to put a global warming clock in times square, showing either the tonnage of greenhouse gases or of carbon, or the parts per million?
Does anyone have a similar "350" counter which can be downloaded to a website? Do you personally want to program one up today?
Oh, just found one.
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/what-you-can-do/downloadable_widget.jsp
But it still doesn't do the parts per million, which is where people are oriented.
390.09 ppm in July. It doesn't go straight up, but it's on an annual cycle upward. It has to do with the northern hemisphere's summer and winter. So, it can be programmed fairly quickly but it's not as easy as pie.
This might be what you're looking for ...
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Widget/
"A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.
It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.
The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035."
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642
I still find it funny that we are so ready to discount as false the idea that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035...
who says they can't? that's 25 years from now...25 years of faux conferences, and missed deadlines for arbitrary reductions...25 years of continued industrial development, much of it in the Himalayan backyard...25 years of rising temps...
BS ALERT.
In Brussels, European Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that "after all the fights," the main findings of the 2007 report are "still unchallenged."
"The bottom line, and this report says it, is that overall the IPCC has done a very good job, but there were some minor errors and they were corrected," she told AFP.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-30-u.n.-climate-panel-needs-to-fundamentally-reform-review-finds/
WVK:
I suggest you read Skeptical Science on the 4th AR. I also think that you would find Oreskes and Conway's Merchants of Doubt useful. It deals with the mechanics of scientific spin doctors using the semblance of science, but not its true essence. This is a classic disinformation trap using techniques first developed by tobacco scientists in the '60s. I notice you don't directly quote from the report on the 4th but only a report from a very conservative newspaper. Next you'll be quoting Faux News. For example the Express article claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were the main proof of Global Warming. That simply isn't true. The reporting on the Himalayan glaciers was in Working Group II. They're not tasked with proving global warming. Group I, the physical scientists' analysis of research has not been attacked. Group I has multiple redundant lines of research that over the past 30 years have provided a robust basis for global warming. Nice try, but we aren't that naive. Cut and paste reports from a newspaper just aren't credible.
WVK:
Another bee for your bonnet. I looked up the IAC report, here's what they have to say, "It is only by engaging the energy and expertise of a large cadre of distinguished scholars as well as the thoughtful participation of government representatives that high standards are maintained and that truly authoritative assessments continue to be produced.” I draw your attention to the words "maintained" and "continue." The report states that the IPCC has, like every human endeavor, flaws but it has consistently produced the baseline for Climate Change research.
We can fix the global warming problem quite easily. All we need do is nuke a nation into glass. The dust from that attack will cause a nice global winter.
One more bang, and we'll be back on track... Sorry Iran.
/lame attempt at satire, very lame...
on edit;
If you're going to flag the above comment, perhaps you'd be kind enough to say why you flagged it?
The solution is to Vote Republican!
Obama is trying to fix everything with complex "please everybody" legislation, and it isn't working. A Republican landslide would force Obama to "triangulate" with the Repubs and conservative Dems. This would complete the destruction of the American working/investor/retired middle class.
The resulting world-wide depression will do more for GHG emission reduction than the diplomats could ever hope for.
I don't believe that a US economic collapse would do that.
The world economy has reached a point that if the US became a big El-Salvador tomorrow, the world would just shrug it off.
I Just came back from Toronto. Even next door to the US, the Canadian economy is completely unaffected by the US recession. Toronto was an incredibly economical upbeat, harmoniously multi-ethnic place. The is not a single vacant storefront space in the city.
Canada is largely self-sufficient in vegetables and produce - even wine. Almost all the veggies in the stores I visited came from the southern Ontario area. They have big greenhouse operations so growing continues through the winter.
From what I could see, even the tacky Niagara Falls tourist-resort industry (right on the border!) would be barely affected if the US ceased to exist. Based on car license plates, there was hardly a USAn there - even from the NY State just across the bridge.
"Nobody thinks Cancun will be a big-bang moment,"
Maybe Nature will provide one....
Looks like now is a good time to reduce one's dependence on organized civilization.
We should resist any attempt to slow/stop global warming unless all countries on the planet can agree to the same reductions and limits, and allow for inspections and enforcement.
If we just try to limit emissions by fully developed countries and ignore the developing countries, then the only thing accomplished will be the movement of wealth, which is their (left leaning liberals) actual hidden agenda. Dumb people are incapable of "reading between the lines" and are susceptible to fall for these scams. Mostly leftist folk. Wake up people. I am not saying that we don't have a global warming problem, but don't let people with hidden agendas, like wealth redistribution, to use it as a means to accomplish their messed up goals. They only pretend to care about it. A bunch of hipocrits. They fly around in jets and live in mega-mansions while they say to normal folk who can barely afford their $80 electric bill they they use to much energy.
"We should resist any attempt to slow/stop global warming unless all countries on the planet can agree to the same reductions and limits, and allow for inspections and enforcement."
Which will never happen.
Your argument complete rubbish - typical USAn right-wing "hidden agenda" nuttery without merit.
The developed economies - notably the Unites States - profligately wastes enormous amounts of energy, even though their economy largely based on information services and technology and on finance - not manufacturing. So, the developed nations have far more emissions amenable to reducing, while (as the article mentions) accruing the economic benefit of the new technologies developed for a low-emissions economy.
but, for the sake of arguing, if the deal resulted in the poorest nations lifting their people out of grinding poverty, at some minor expense to the rich, I hardly see that as a bad thing.
The current status of the working class in the US has nothing to do with high energy prices - they are already the lowest in the world outside of a few OPEC countries. The working class is struggling because the extremely poor distribution of wealth in the US - combined with the US suburban model requiring the working class to pour so much of their income into a car. I just came back from Toronto. The working class there is paying much higher prices for energy, yet they are doing quite well. They are paid somewhat better and, with the public transportation, don't need a car. If they do own a car, they use it far less.
And, by the way I know of no leftists who live in mansions and fly in business jets. Many of my leftist friends don't own a house, or a car, or an air-conditioner, at all.
Withdrawn by author.
Robw24:
I hate to tell you this but the biggest block to current enforceable climate change legislation is the United States. The Senate didn't approve the Kyoto Protocol. It can't pass climate change legislation and because of people like you we aren't funding green energy development in this country. Think back to the days of the ozone hole. The US unilaterally phased out CFCs and pursued a vigorous diplomatic effort to stop the rest of the world from using them. It worked. Most countries don't have oil fields or coal mines. If renewable, reasonably priced green generators were available don't you think they'd buy them? Oh, but wait. . . the oil companies would lose business, can't have that. Also, I suggest you get a dictionary or use your computer's spell check. The word is, "hypocrite" and it's "too" not "to." By the way, according to the International Energy Agency, we North Americans use a little over half of the world's energy. Europe adds another 35 per cent. I think we could lead by example without too much suffering. Finally, when 100's of millions of people start looking for high ground do you think we're not going to be "host" to a lot of displaced people. Wouldn't it make more sense to use what influence we do have to make sure they can survive where they are now and that means control of the greenhouse effect.