Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Climate Imperative
NEW DELHI – Today, international action on climate change is urgent and essential. Indeed, there can no longer be any debate about the need to act, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of which I am chairman, has established climate change as an unequivocal reality beyond scientific doubt.
For instance, changes are taking place in precipitation patterns, with a trend toward higher precipitation levels in the world’s upper latitudes and lower precipitation in some sub-tropical and tropical regions, as well as in the Mediterranean area. The number of extreme precipitation events is also increasing – and are increasingly widespread. Moreover, the frequency and intensity of heat waves, floods, and droughts are on the rise.
This change in the amount and pattern of rainfall has serious implications for many economic activities, as well as for countries’ preparedness to handle emergencies such as large-scale coastal flooding or heavy snowfall.
Some parts of the world are more vulnerable than others to these changes. The Arctic region, in particular, has been warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe. Coral reefs, mega-deltas (which include cities like Shanghai, Kolkata, and Dhaka), and small island states are also extremely vulnerable to rising sea levels.
Other negative effects of climate change include possible reductions in crop yields. In some African countries, for example, yields could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Climate change would also lead to increased water stress, which by 2020 could affect 75-250 million people in Africa alone.
Overall, temperature increases are projected to increase by the year 2100 within a range of 1.1 to 6.4˚C. In order to focus on this set of outcomes, the IPCC has come up with a best estimate at the lower end of this range of 1.8˚C, and 4˚C at the upper end. Even at the lower estimate, the consequences of climate change could be severe in several parts of the world, including an increase in water stress, serious effects on ecosystems and food security, and threats to life and property as a result of coastal flooding.
There also may be serious direct consequences for human health if climate change is not checked, particularly increased morbidity and mortality as a result of heat waves, floods, and droughts. Moreover, the distribution of some diseases would change, making human populations more vulnerable.
Because the impact of climate change is global, it is essential that the world as a whole take specific measures to adapt. But it is already clear that the capacity of some communities to adapt will quickly be exceeded if climate change goes unmitigated.
To help these most vulnerable communities, it is essential for the world to devise a plan of action to limit the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Several scenarios have been assessed by the IPCC, and one that would limit future temperature increase to between 2.0-2.4˚C would require that emissions peak no later than 2015, and decline thereafter. The rate of decline would then determine the extent to which the worst effects of climate change can be avoided.
The IPCC also found that the cost of such a strict effort at mitigation would not exceed 3% of global GDP in 2030. Moreover, there are enormous co-benefits to mitigation: lower emissions of GHGs would be accompanied by lower air pollution and increased energy security, agricultural output, and employment. If these co-benefits were taken fully into account, that price tag of 3% of GDP in 2030 would be substantially lower, perhaps even negative. The world could actually enhance economic output and welfare by pursuing a path of mitigation.
The need for international action, therefore, stems from two important observations arising out of the IPCC’s work. First, if we do not mitigate emissions of GHGs, the negative effects of climate change will be difficult to reverse, implying great hardship and possibly danger to mankind and other species.
Second, the benefits of mitigating emissions of GHGs are so overwhelming that this, combined with the prospect of the harm resulting from inaction, makes it imperative for the world to devise an international response and a plan of action. Given the challenge facing us, the magnitude and nature of which were clearly brought out by the IPCC, the Copenhagen Conference later this year must produce a multi-lateral agreement that deals adequately with climate change.
19 Comments so far
Show AllWhile accurate in most respects, the ranting in these comments will accomplish nothing.
The only thing that will prevent certain disaster, whether it be from coal or nukes, is for everyone support development of a cleaner, better, and far cheaper method to produce electricity, which can be done in a distributed fashion (no new grid construction necessary).
The corporate vampires do not fear politicians to stand in their path, they OWN them. The C-O-N-G cabal's only fear is that "Plan B" takes root across the countryside and around the world, which would render their technology and resources worthless.
The energy sources which power "Plan B" are real and abundant, not a figment of someone's imagination.
For information on CAPE, one of the energy sources which can power "Plan B", visit http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html
For the technology behind Plan B, visit http://vortexengine.ca
Unfortunately Pachauri and Hansen, the conservative establishment's favorite anti-global warming voices, are pushing the dirtiest, most expensive and most dangerous of all energy sources, nukes.
Brave and encouraging words from Dr. Pauchauri but unfortunately we had better face up to it - the ruling elites who benefit by our current rate of fossil fuel extraction and production of airborne carbon are simply not going to give up. Instead they appear perfectly willing to raise great armies of credulous, violent dimbulbs to defend the "American way of life" against the "menace of one-world goverment". This is what Cheney meant when he said the American way of life was non-negotiable. The science doesn't matter. The future doesn't matter. A rich, diverse and therefore at least somewhat stable planetary ecosystem does not matter. What matters is what we want now, especially the elites.
Right now there are small armies in the coal country, miners, industry people, their friends, Klansmen, paranoids, meth cookers and good old boys, literally willing to bully, bludgeon, and silence anybody who opposes mountain top removal. How much bigger will this army get when people can't watch their NASCAR, cool their houses, drive their F-150s to the Walmart, cruise main street on Saturday night, or have tailgate parties? People are willing to die for very little. The littler and stupider, sometimes, the better. A lot of Americans would rather kill their neighbors than save energy. I wish I were exaggerating.
We are likely to return to 1990s carbon production levels only when it becomes too expensive to extract the carbon source and use it. Before then, many of us are too loyal to our utterly delusional sense of entitlement to do anything about this.
>>>jareilly wrote: ,,,the ruling elites who benefit by our current rate of fossil fuel extraction and production of airborne carbon are simply not going to give up. Instead they appear perfectly willing to raise great armies of credulous, violent dimbulbs to defend the "American way of life" against the "menace of one-world goverment".
Unfortunately, it's not just the ruling elite. I remember watching Alex Jones' "Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement" where he mixes up eugenics, population control, NAFTA and climate change as part of the attempts to build a New World Order. I was really disappointed because Jones otherwise raises some issues you will never see in the MSM, and seeing how some prominent characters attend these secret meetings of the elite was like an eyeopener - though some might dismiss such stories as just conspiracy theory fluff. That some of these people later went on to become Presidents and Prime Ministers was a revelation too. But without any proof, Alex Jones goes on to include climate change as part of the conspiracy - I'm pretty sure this would let him sell more of his stuff. But this could be one of the reasons he lost some credibility. In "Endgame", you'll see people protesting against the TransTexas Corridor (NAFAT superhighway) and secret attempts towards a North American Union - but throwing in the warnings about climate change into the mix without any scientific basis only muddies the situation.
Alex Jones is a character, not a credible, logical thinker.
>>>Greg R wrote: Alex Jones is a character, not a credible, logical thinker.
But I think he has a role to play, though we have to filter out a lot of the stuff he says. For example, when ex-Mexican President Vicente Fox was going around American TV talk shows promoting his book, I got the distinct feeling that he was trying to sell the idea of a North American Union, telling Americans not to fear and what not. Since then I've had a chance to read about the so-called 'Security & Prosperity Partnership', though lately it's not mentioned publicly. I have no doubt that many in the business community would welcome greater integration (or 'deep integration' as some call it). I think it was Vicente Fox (not sure) who talked about pooling the strengths - capital from the USA, labor from Mexico and the resources of Canada - for everyone's prosperity. Yeah right! But I don't know if this attempt to expand NAFTA fits into any NWO conspiracy.
And before the 2008 elections, I was reading in another blog about lots of characters - and now I find a few of them in the Obama administration. In fact, my doubts about Obama started when he started announcing his team soon after the elections. When I see some people on TV - both during the Bush admin. and now, I have to wonder - where their loyalties lie. So, yeah, I think conspiracy theorists, though might go overboard frequently, have their place - as long as we can filter out the fluff from the plausible.
you all know the story about the frog in the pot as the heat is turned up right?
I know you are not exaggerating. You have described perfectly the attitudes of how we got here and why we are in it to the tragic end.
My only difference with your pronouncement is that we are not going to return to the 1990's levels. We are already progressing quite rapidly into the 6th major extinction.
If you haven't read Under a Green Sky yet please do. Ward explains why we are facing the same circumstances as we did during the Permian. It's a real eye opener.
As for people "sacrificing"? Never. Ain't going to happen. They die clinging to that American lifestyle they have perfected and are desperate to export.
Most bang for the buck. Free Public Transit. Give the suburbs to the organic farmers. Gradually eliminate the private auto.
http://freepublictransit.org
"The world could actually enhance economic output and welfare by pursuing a path of mitigation."
What is most profound is not that the above statement refutes the official US story line. It is that ALL official US story lines are refuted by a set of related facts that mainly have to do with the natural laws that are rejected in the USA in favor of Judeo-Christian mythology, ancient and modern, e.g. Protestant Work Ethic, etc.
>>>rtdrury wrote: ...official US story lines are refuted by a set of related facts that mainly have to do with the natural laws that are rejected in the USA in favor of Judeo-Christian mythology...
I just read about it in the book "Adapting to the End of Oil: Toward an Earth-Centered Spirituality" by Maynard Kaufman. It's scary to see how there is a sizable population that actually believes in (and wishes for?) the 'End Time' myth. This is no less worrisome than the ideology that drives the suicide bomber.
"there can no longer be any debate about the need to act, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of which I am chairman, has established climate change as an unequivocal reality beyond scientific doubt."
This is a nonsensical statement. I don't believe anyone is denying that our climate is changing. Thats the essence of a straw man argument is it not? I readily believe it is a scientificically proven reality. Any normal person would not argue that our climate is not changing.
The question has been and still is....is it caused by man? Man made? Absolutely no unequivocal scientific proof. Opinions yes, no proof.
Even if it was true, can we do anything about it? Again, no scientific data shows that we could. None.
Personally one poster put forth the only argument that makes sense at this moment and I agree with it.
"I always come back to the better-safe-than-sorry argument"
But asking people to take draconian positions by telling them that it is a scientifically proven fact that climate change is man made or that even if it were, it is scientifically proven that we could do XYZ and this would result in ZYX simply defeats the whole purpose. When people find out they have been lied to, they tend not to believe the wolf cryer the next time around.
"I don't believe anyone is denying that our climate is changing."
Really? You should read from 'the other side' more often:
Senator James Inhofe: "Global Warming is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Alan Carlin, senior analyst, EPA Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation: "Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They’re not going up. If anything they are going down.”
Rush Limbaugh, July 3, 2009: "We Cannot Eliminate Coal, and Global Warming is a Hoax Anyway!"
The Morning Journal, July 2, 2009: "Global warming is a hoax."
The News Herald, July 5, 2009: "The reality is that folks are catching on to the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax."
Surely you jest.
Your experts are comedians.
Look for the most notable changes to come from 20 degrees north and south of the equator and 20 degrees from the north and south poles.This is where most of damage is coming from in the race for "progress";then it will escalate from there to the other latitudes where most populations live.This is my take from what I've read.Tony
I really want to be as certain.
The US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (which is almost certainly unduly influenced by the oil and energy corporatacry) now reports that over 700 credible scientists from around the word refute claims over man-made global warming. Likewise, recent polls indicate a growing percentage of Americans are becoming cynical.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23...
Now I understand how others (myself included) want to believe the increasing numbers of alleged "credible" scientists are being compromised by virtue of their employer's economic interests or for the sake of their funding streams. But the reality is these debunkers need to be debunked themselves, or they must be given some credence.
I know how heated this topic is and I'm not looking to debate anyone. It's just that I personally have an impossible time discussing this with those whom feel man can't actually affect the climate, and that current weather phenomena is just another of hundreds or thousands of changes that have occurred since time began.
I always come back to the better-safe-than-sorry argument, and I think it is highly irresponsible to casually disregard the potential threat to our children's world. I also believe that mitigation would create much greater benefit in the long term for the entire planet, and I can't justify economic fear as a reason to not mitigate.
As for the IPCC, I have a hard time understanding why they would elevate the true nature of the threat, but then I remember how IEEE "seemed" to overstate the Y2K threat.
If you google 'global warming hoax' and you will get over 2 million results.
I think this issue is a great example of how common sense and intellectual debate are becoming lost in our modern society. It is becoming impossible to discern between opinion and logical informed reasoning. And the afflicted includes just about everyone I know.
In other words, every weather system intensifies --
winds, hurricaines, cyclones, tornadoes - and snow
storms, as well. We will also have more earthquakes.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Pachauri and all the other scientists have been sounding the alarm and pleading for action. Many of these scientists are already well-off, successful in their careers in various fields and can actually retire nicely - they don't need to do this for money.
Climate change is more than just global warming - it affects rainfall patterns and therefore livelihoods, and also causes or aggravates natural disasters.
People most affected are those that are least responsible for climate change.
The cost of changing course, while huge, is still reasonable - and within the means of most countries that are responsible, if treated as important.
The cost of not acting now is several times more.
And the time to act is NOW.
All that's needed is the will to act - and a heart to see the effect of one's own actions and inaction.
The Earth will fight back - it's better to be on the right side of this battle, or even better yet, to make peace, change course and avoid THE FIGHT - because there's no question who'll win.
Climate change is a euphemism to placate corporations --
Global Warming is the reality -- it is HEAT which must be kept clear in our
minds and that HEAT creates chaotic weather conditions, changing systems such
as the once in every 1,000/2,000 El Nino and La Nina -- as well as every other
system.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"