Good, wide-ranging article by Geoffrey Lean in yesterday's Independent
on Sunday -- although one would surely wish to question his tacit
acceptance of the paradigm of economic growth which underlies the very problem
of climate crisis.
I'm forwarding Ted Glick's message too, with its link to the Climate Crisis
Coalition....
Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the
Earth
Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209 Floods,
storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, oceans turning to
acid. The world's top scientists warned last week that dangerous climate change
is taking place today, not the day after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then,
says Geoffrey Lean, read this...
by Geoffrey Lean
Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable
world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of 2005. As
they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into disaster -
destroying the climate that has allowed human civilization to flourish over the
past 11,000 years - they may well identify the past weeks as the time when the
last alarms sounded.
Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate
scientists - meeting at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new
headquarters at Exeter - issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous
climate change is taking place, and that time is running out.
Next week the
Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to control global warming,
comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is clear that the protocol
does not go nearly far enough.
The alarms have been going off since
the beginning of one of the warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra
Pachauri - chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) - told a UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes
global warming has reached "dangerous" levels.
Then the
biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford University, reported that
it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's worst predictions. And
an international task force - also reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by
his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that we could reach "the point of no
return" in a decade.
Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh,
took time out - just before his company reported record profits mainly achieved
by selling oil, one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless
governments take urgent action there "will be a disaster".
But it
was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters, incongruously
set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of Exeter, that it all came
together. The conference had been called by the Prime Minister to advise him on
how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He needed help in persuading the world
to prioritize the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and
the G8 group of economic powers.
The conference opened with the
Secretary of State for the Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a
significant impact" from global warming "is already inevitable". It continued
with presentations from top scientists and economists from every continent.
These showed that some dangerous climate change was already taking place and
that catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as likely
(see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically simple and economically cheap,
they said, provided that governments could be persuaded to take immediate
action.
About halfway through I realized that I had been here
before. In the summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in
Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian
delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves
gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.
It was all, of
course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper followed learned paper, once
again a group of world authorities were staring at a crisis they had devoted
their lives to trying to avoid.
I am willing to bet there were few
in the room who did not sense their children or grandchildren standing invisibly
at their shoulders. The conference formally concluded that climate change was
"already occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than
previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice
to the sense of the meeting.
We learned that glaciers are shrinking
around the world. Arctic sea ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent
decades. Natural disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused
by the weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times
faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.
We learned
that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year, after the sand eels
on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the number of scientific
papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global warming has escalated from
14 to more than a thousand in five years.
Worse, leading scientists
warned of catastrophic changes that once they had dismissed as "improbable". The
meeting was particularly alarmed by powerful evidence, first reported in The
Independent on Sunday last July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid,
threatening all marine life.
Professor Chris Rapley, director of
the British Antarctic Survey, presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice
sheet is beginning to melt, threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft:
90 per cent of the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that
the IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I
would say that this is now an awakened giant."
Professor Mike
Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the
Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was now 45 per cent likely
this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it comes sooner rather than
later it will be catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a
climate like Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world
heats up: if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of the
warming.
The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the
danger, mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole:
humanity is to blame. There were a few skeptics at Exeter, including Andrei
Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the
Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier to find
skeptics among media pundits in London or neo-cons in Washington than among
climate scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little
research to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of
others.
Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the
warming must be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if
catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping
concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change, below 400
parts per million.
Unfortunately we are almost there, with
concentrations exceeding 370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference
concluded that we could go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought
it down rapidly afterwards. They added that this would involve the world
reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by
30 per cent by 2020.
Economists stressed there is little time for
delay. If action is put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical;
if it has to wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as
much.
The good news is that it can be done with existing
technology, by cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources,
growing trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into
fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and - maybe -
using more nuclear energy.
The better news is that it would not
cost much: one estimate suggested the cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's
GNP spread over 20 years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected
fivefold increase in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe
combating global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in new
technologies.
The big question is whether governments will act.
President Bush's opposition to international action remains the greatest
obstacle. Tony Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the
best chance of persuading him to change his mind.
But so far the
Prime Minister has been more influenced by the President than the other way
round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the pollution reductions
needed in favor of agreeing on a vague pledge to bring in new technologies
sometime in the future.
By then it will be too late. And our
children and grandchildren will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the
drift into the First World War - "how on earth could they be so
blind?"
WATER WARS
What could happen? Wars break out
over diminishing water resources as populations grow and rains
fail.
How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than
at present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the
future, and global warming will make it worse.
How likely is it?
Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said that the next Middle East
war will be fought for water, not oil.
DISAPPEARING
NATIONS
What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives
and Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will
disappear off the face of the Earth.
How would this come about? As
the world heats up, sea levels are rising, partly because glaciers are melting,
and partly because the water in the oceans expands as it gets
warmer.
How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming
stopped today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands
have already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly
submerged.
FLOODING
What could happen? London, New
York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities and vast areas of countries from Britain
to Bangladesh disappear under tens of feet of water, as the seas rise
dramatically.
How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and
Antarctica melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than
20ft, the West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.
How likely is
it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year reported that the
melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take hundreds of years, however, for
the seas to rise that much.
UNINHABITABLE EARTH
What
could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the world's whole
climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much hotter and less
hospitable planet.
How would this come about? A process involving
"positive feedback" causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point
that finally tips the climate pattern over.
How likely is it?
Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past. Scientists believe this is
unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, but increasingly they are refusing
to rule it out.
RAINFOREST FIRES
What could happen?
Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon, go up in flames,
destroying the world's richest wildlife habitats and releasing vast amounts of
carbon dioxide to speed global warming.
How would this come about?
Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that much of the Amazon will dry out and
die within 50 years, making it ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to
set it ablaze.
How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out
to be right. Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and
Amazonia, casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast
areas.
THE BIG FREEZE
What could happen? Britain and
northern Europe get much colder because the Gulf Stream, which provides as much
heat as the sun in winter, fails.
How would this come about?
Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the North Atlantic. The less salty
water fails to generate the underwater current which the Gulf Stream
needs.
How likely is it? About evens for a Gulf Steam failure this
century, said scientists last week.
STARVATION
What
could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as rainfall
dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert, people flee in
their millions in search of food.
How would this come about?
Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent
in summer in southern Africa this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose
almost all its farms.
How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the
world tackles both global warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that
droughts will increase in a warmer world.
ACID
OCEANS
What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and
more acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will
die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.
How
would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon dioxide, the
main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms dilute
carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.
How likely is it?
It is already starting. Scientists warn that the chemistry of the oceans is
changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years. Some predict that the
world's coral reefs will die within 35
years.
DISEASE
What could happen? Malaria - which
kills two million people worldwide every year - reaches Britain with foreign
travelers, gets picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer
climate.
How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species
can carry the disease, and hundreds of travelers return with it annually. The
insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.
How
likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may happen by 2050:
the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it is miraculous
that it has not happened already.
HURRICANES
What
could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate, grow even
fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering of Florida and
the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come, say
scientists.
How would this come about? The storms gather their
energy from warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and
threaten areas where at present the seas are too cool for such
weather.
How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether
storms will get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209