The more we know, the grimmer it gets.
Presentations by climate scientists at this week's conference in Copenhagen show that we might have underplayed the impacts of global warming in three important respects:
- Partly because the estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took no account of meltwater from Greenland's glaciers, the rise in sea levels this century could be twice or three times as great as it forecast, with grave implications for coastal cities, farmland and freshwater reserves.
- Two degrees of warming in the Arctic (which is heating up much more quickly than the rest of the planet) could trigger
a massive bacterial response in the soils there. As the permafrost
melts, bacteria are able to start breaking down organic material that
was previously locked up in ice, producing billions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide and methane. This could catalyse one of the world's most
powerful positive feedback loops: warming causing more warming.
- Four degrees of warming could almost eliminate
the Amazon rainforests, with appalling implications for biodiversity
and regional weather patterns, and with the result that a massive new
pulse of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Trees are
basically sticks of wet carbon. As they rot or burn, the carbon
oxidises. This is another way in which climate feedbacks appear to have
been underestimated in the last IPCC report.
Apart from the
sheer animal panic I felt on reading these reports, two things jumped
out at me. The first is that governments are relying on IPCC
assessments that are years out of date even before they are published,
as a result of the IPCC's extremely careful and laborious review and
consensus process. This lends its reports great scientific weight, but
it also means that the politicians using them as a guide to the cuts in
greenhouse gases required are always well behind the curve. There is
surely a strong case for the IPCC to publish interim reports every
year, consisting of a summary of the latest science and its
implications for global policy.
The second is that we have to
stop calling it climate change. Using "climate change" to describe
events like this, with their devastating implications for global food
security, water supplies and human settlements, is like describing a
foreign invasion as an unexpected visit, or bombs as unwanted
deliveries. It's a ridiculously neutral term for the biggest potential
catastrophe humankind has ever encountered.
I think we should call it "climate breakdown". Does anyone out there have a better idea?
© 2023 The Guardian
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.